Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S. OCCUPIED ISLANDS (BRITISH INTERESTS)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what preferential conditions were asked for by the U.S.A. and granted by U.N.O., to Americans in the islands which have been added to the U.S. empire as a result of the war; and in what way these conditions affect the commercial relationship between these islands and the rest of the world, particularly the countries of the British Empire.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Strategic Area Trusteeship Agreement for the former Japanese mandated islands, that is the Marshall, Caroline and the Mariana Islands, naming the United States of America as administering authority, which was approved by the Security Council on 2nd April, 1947, and that he has Article 8 (1) of that Agreement in mind. His Majesty's Government do not consider that the conditions of that Article will have any appreciable effect on commercial relationships between the former Japanese mandated islands and other countries, in particular the United Kingdom.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be equal opportunities for British subjects in these islands?

Mr. McNeil: I am satisfied that any apparent discrimination is due exclusively to security considerations, and that there will be no commercial discrimination of any kind.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Are British subjects allowed to visit these islands now?

Mr. McNeil: I prefer to say that no facilities will be denied to British merchants which are accorded to other nationalities.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND

Port Facilities

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the United Kingdom delegation to the Economic Commission for Europe to press for immediate concerted action to assist the Polish Government in improving the unloading facilities at the harbours of Gdynia and Gdansk, so that more Polish coal can be made available to Britain and other European countries.

Mr. McNeil: On the general question of instructions to the United Kingdom delegation to the Economic Commission for Europe I would refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given to him on 7th May. The Polish Government, however, has been informed that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to examine possibilities of help in providing additional facilities in Polish ports.

Mr. Warbey: Bearing in mind the fact that the limiting factor to the export of Polish coal this year is likely to be, not production, but transport, will my right hon. Friend try to get the concerted action of Those European countries, including ourselves, which are anxious to import coal from Poland?

Mr. McNeil: As regards transport, I am not clear whether my hon. Friend is referring to internal or external transport. We have made a concerted effort to see that in general internal European transport is most efficiently and economically provided. In the matter of external transport, His Majesty's Government are considering what mechanical help they might make available to the Polish Government.

Polish Nationals, U.K. (Repatriation)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, of two Polish newspapers circulating widely among Polish soldiers in Britain, one contained no reference whatever in its issue of 6th May to his statement of


the previous day with its emphatic endorsement of the genuineness of the encouragement offered by the Polish Government to expatriate Poles to return home and the other published the statement in garbled and incomplete form; and what steps he is taking to convey his views to the ordinary Polish troops still in this country.

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir; but I should add that one newspaper carried the full text on 7th May and the other on 8th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Control Commission

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of the British personnel in Germany at the latest available date, giving services and civilians separately.

Mr. McNeil: On 19th April the British Element of the Control Commission employed 19,050 civilians and 3,410 Service personnel in Germany.

Sir W. Smithers: Why is it that the civilian personnel get better pay and treatment than the Service personnel? Further, is it not a fact that our work of reconstruction is being seriously hampered by Soviet activities?

Mr. McNeil: I cannot see how the second point arises from this Question. As to the first part of the supplementary question, there are many grades within distinct categories; if the hon. Member has any detailed inquiries to make, perhaps he will put them down.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the report which has been sent to him about the unsatisfactory conditions of control in Germany and consequent waste of British taxpayers' money; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNeil: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the letter he sent to my right hon. Friend on 3rd May. My right hon. Friend will naturally reply to the letter in the normal way as soon as inquiries have been made.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have first-hand information that some of the personnel are quite unfit for the job, and that some mem-

bers of the Control Commission are only there to have a good time, and, owing to their behaviour, are lowering the prestige of Britain in Germany as well as losing the respect of the Germans?

Mr. McNeil: I am naturally most anxious at all times to offer all the information which is appropriate and possible in these matters, but I should think it singularly unfortunate if I singled out one letter from the hon. Gentleman opposite and made it the subject of a detailed reply to a Question.

Frau Elisabeth Rolfes

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how soon the hon. Member for Maldon may expect a final reply to his letter of 18th December, 1946, regarding a claim arising from the death of Frau Elisabeth Rolfes, in reply to which the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster advised him on 30th January that the authorities were very much concerned that no time be lost in making the necessary arrangements for such claims to be investigated; and whether such arrangements have now been made.

Mr. McNeil: I regret the delay in dealing with this case, but His Majesty's Government have been anxious to produce an equitable and workable scheme to cover not only this case but all similar ones. I hope, in about a fortnight's time, to be able to announce the details of a panel for dealing with such claims, the subjects which can be brought before it, and the procedure to be followed in making and in settling such claims.

Fish Imports

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are being, made by the British Control Commission for the exporting of herring by the English fishing fleet to Germany during the ensuing fishing season.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decisions have been reached by the joint Anglo-U.S. authority regarding the importation of fish to Germany during the remainder of this year.

Mr. McNeil: The British and American authorities in Berlin who are responsible for the procurement of food for the com-


pined British and American zones have not yet reached any final decisions on the importation of fish into Germany.

Mr. Evans: In view of the importance of fish, both to the dietary of the very hard pressed German population and to the industry in this country, cannot the Minister assure the House that there will be, as there was last year, an open market for the herring, particularly in the English herring season? Will he assure the House that the arrangements to be made will be more satisfactory in order to have a better result than last year?

Mr. McNeil: I completely agree about the importance of this source of proteins for the German population and I also think we ought to make better arrangements than last year, if possible. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not press me, because it is completely a matter of costing, and that subject we are examining most closely.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the amount of money British taxpayers are having to put into Germany, and also because the Americans are considering placing this business in Norway, will the right hon. Gentleman see that we get preferential treatment in this matter to make up for the money we are spending?

Mr. McNeil: The amount it is costing the taxpayer is a prominent feature for consideration.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that very superior fish, the Cornish pilchard.

Mr. McNeil: Nor will I forget the herring.

Newsprint Supplies

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the proposed cut in newsprint supplies in the British zone will make it impossible for publishers to present an adequate picture of home and foreign news; and, in the light of this fact, if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNeil: I am aware of the difficulties experienced by the Press in the British zone of Germany. Shortages of coal and pulp with the transport difficulties caused by the exceptionally severe winter have adversely affected newsprint

production and stocks have fallen to a low level. Production should, however, now improve and supplies are expected shortly from the American zone in accordance with the fusion agreement. In view of this improvement I am hopeful that the proposed cut of 25 per cent. will not now be of long duration.

Coal Production

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement in respect of the coal production position in the British zone of Germany.

Mr. McNeil: The upward trend in the production of hard coal was arrested towards the end of March, and since then output has fallen from 237,000 to 221,000 tons a day. The average manshift output has dropped from 0.96 to 0.91 tons, and there has been a noticeable increase in absenteeism.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he considers that this is due to inadequate rations for the miners in Germany?

Mr. McNeil: No one can be certain about such a complex subject, but I should imagine that the drop in available food has been a feature. I should point out to my hon. Friend, of course, that the drop, whilst most deplorable, has not been as great as the comparable drop last year.

Mr. Bramall: Will the Minister bear in mind that the important matter here is not only the question of rations for the miners themselves but that of the rations available to their families?

Mr. William Shepherd: Can the Minister reconcile this drop in production with the agreement to export more coal, thus putting a greater burden still upon the British taxpayer?

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to try to bring about an increase in production once again?

Mr. McNeil: The primary steps, of course, are related to food. There is a Question upon that subject on the Order Paper.

Food Situation

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs


whether he is aware of the increasingly serious food situation in the Anglo-United States area of Germany; and if he will make a statement indicating the steps contemplated to prevent its further deterioration.

Mr. McNeil: The food situation in the American and British zone of Germany is admittedly most unsatisfactory. The present shortages are due in part to difficulties of collection and distribution within Germany and in part to imports of grain falling short of our expectations. The bizonal authorities in Germany are considering what steps can be taken to improve indigenous collections. As for imports, on which the maintenance of the ration largely depends at this time of the year, everything possible is being done to speed up existing programmes and to maintain a sufficient flow of supplies.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Would my right hon. Friend tell me what kind of controls there are on the farms and rural areas of Germany which export to the more industrial areas?

Mr. McNeil: I should not think that was a very suitable question for me to deal with summarily. I should say that in our zone the system of collection has not been bad. For a variety of reasons, which would take some explaining, the system of collection in the American zone has not been quite so successful.

Mr. Eden: In view of the importance of this question, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises, will the Foreign Secretary be giving us some fuller information upon it in the Debate on Thursday, because it is utterly fundamental to European recovery?

Mr. McNeil: I hope I did not give any impression that I thought that it was other than of the greatest importance. I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that point on Thursday.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend take into fullest consideration the necessity for letting the German people know the whys and wherefores in regard to the shortage of food, because in many cases the people seem to be ignorant of the real facts behind the present shortages?

Mr. McNeil: That is one of the reasons why we have been so anxious to avoid the concentrated cuts in newsprint.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the Minister realise, taking this Question and Question 14 together, that the Germans would prefer a daily meal to a "Daily Mail"?

Mr. McNeil: I do not blame them.

ANGLO-CHINESE COMMERCIAL TREATY (NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. John Paton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the negotiations for a commercial treaty between the British and Chinese Governments have now been completed and if he will make a statement on the subject.

Mr. McNeil: I regret that the negotiations are not yet completed, partly because of the necessity for reconciling the British and Chinese draft treaties, and partly because many Departments of His Majesty's Government are concerned with the proposed treaty and all of them have had to be afforded an opportunity for studying and commenting upon the Chinese draft.

Mr. Paton: Is the Minister aware that these negotiations have been going on since December and we are now in the middle of May? In view of the urgency, will he see that there is no avoidable delay on our side?

Mr. McNeil: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the comparative urgency of this matter, but I hope that he will appreciate that almost every Government Department has been affected by the proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Workers' Sugar Allowances

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food what is the allocation of sugar for tea for factory workers and for those working in offices, respectively.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Heavy workers' category A canteens receive one-fifth of an ounce of sugar for each hot drink served and other works and office canteens one-eighth of an ounce. Where there is no canteen, industrial workers can get one ounce per head


per week for communal tea making but none is allowed for office workers.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister explain why there is this difference between the allocation to office workers and that to industrial workers where canteens are not provided?

Mr. Strachey: On the whole, industrial workers are favoured in all food matters because it is considered that it is more important to give them increased nourishment.

Mr. Shepherd: Does the Minister seriously suggest that office workers ought not to be allowed a ration of tea and sugar and that industrial workers should be given a ration?

Mr. Strachey: We should like to allow the ration to both, but I think it is reasonable to give the industrial worker prority.

Imported Onions

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Food how many onions have been imported into this country during 1947; how many have rotted owing to lack of facilities to discharge the vessels; and what has been the loss expressed in foreign exchange.

Mr. Strachey: Up to 31st March, 55,736 tons of onions have been imported this year. I have had no complaints of loss through lack of discharging facilities, but if the hon. Member will let me know of any reports which have reached him, I will gladly have them looked into.

Siamese Rice

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food what shipments of rice have been made from Siam in February, March and April, 1947, respectively.

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Minister of Food what price the International Rice Commission is now paying for rice in Siam; and whether expected supplies are now available.

Mr. Strachey: About 20,500 tons of rice were exported from Siam in February, 31,800 tons in March, and 45,000 tons between 1st and 25th April. The Combined Siam Rice Commission do not buy rice; the present export price is about £26 per ton f.o.b.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister agree that this total for very nearly three months is well below the contracts signed last year, and what steps is he taking to see that supplies of this vital food from Malaya and other parts of the East are very largely increased? Has he managed to see that the owner and producer of rice gets the benefit of the foreign exchange and not the Government?

Mr. Strachey: I would agree that these totals are not fully satisfactory but they are rising. I would not like to utter any complacent words about the situation. My Director of Rice has very recently been in Siam and we are putting very strong pressure on the Siamese Government in view of the immense importance of this foodstuff and we shall certainly continue to do so.

Sir W. Smithers: May I protest against, "My Director of Rice?" The Director of Rice is a servant of the taxpayer and of the country.

Mr. Strachey: If the phrase does not please the hon. Member, I shall be delighted to withdraw it.

Subsidies

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Food the food items on which there is going to be a withdrawal or reduction of subsidy.

Mr. Strachey: I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the announcements which are made whenever controlled food prices change in either direction.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister give an indication as to the date of the announcement?

Mr. Strachey: I do not know what announcement the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Piratin: In that case would the Minister recall what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a few weeks ago when he intimated to the House that we could expect such changes in the near future and that the Minister of Food would be the one to acquaint us?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I know of no such announcement. Various changes of food prices have been made over the past three months of which I gave the hon. Member a list. There may be others.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the Minister bear in mind, and also impress it on his colleagues, that this policy of food subsidies has been of tremendous importance both in securing a just distribution of food and in restraining the wages-prices spiral? Will he give this his closest consideration?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, we regard this as of the utmost importance, and a most substantial figure has already been announced to be expended on food subsidies in the coming financial year.

Mr. Keeling: Does not the Minister agree that it is a great extravagance that the Treasury should have to bear no less than two-thirds of the cost of home-made cheese, the demand for which is far in excess of the supply?

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member thinks it would be a good thing to allow the price of cheese to rise to an unsubsidised level, I cannot agree.

Mr. Keeling: Home-made cheese only.

Flour (Bakers)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food the amount of flour allocation to bakers for each month of the last six months, to the latest available date.

Mr. Strachey: There are no such allocations. As already announced, there is a limitation during the six weeks from 27th April to 95 per cent. of what bakers bought from the millers in February and March last.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that this new, limitation is only camouflaged and has the effect of deceiving the public? Is it not simply robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I am aware of nothing of the kind.

Bread Rationing

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement in regard to the continuance or otherwise of bread rationing.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the improvement in the wheat supplies in this country and the potential improvement throughout the coming months of the year, the Government can give an undertaking to abandon bread rationing on or before 30th June, 1947

Mr. Strachey: As I have already said publicly and repeatedly, it would clearly be wrong to make any decision on bread rationing before we see what this year's harvests are going to be like.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: When the Minister has reached a decision on this important matter, will be make his first announcement to this House?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that bread rationing is really very largely a bureaucratic farce and is wasteful of bread and manpower, and would it not be better to do away with it?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir; it will be very much better to do away with it when the supply situation permits.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the American position stronger than it has even been?

Departmental Staffs

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Food the total number of persons employed by his Department at the last convenient date; what proportion of these are established civil servants; and how many are employed as enforcement officers.

Mr. Strachey: Counting two part-timers as one full time worker, in the usual way, the number of industrial and non-industrial staff employed in my Department on 1st April, 1947, was 44,242, of whom 1,258, or 2.84 per cent., are established civil servants and 754 are employed throughout the country as enforcement officers

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is the Minister aware that the figure he has just given is only about 10 per cent. less than it was at the height of the war, and may we now anticipate an increase or a decrease?

Mr. Strachey: It is entirely a question of rationing. If we can abolish, for example, bread rationing and the rationing of other staple foods, of course, we can make a most substantial decrease. The vast majority of this staff is employed in the local offices on rationing.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: As the Minister has said that a reduction can only be made if we abolish rationing, will he now abolish rationing?

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will abolish the necessity for rationing.

London Dock Strike (Fish Wastage)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Food how much food has gone rotten at the London docks because of the latest strike of dock workers.

Mr. Strachey: 12 cwt. of fish.

Brigadier Rayner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these successive unofficial strikes affecting food supplies are adding to the prevalent malnutrition, and is he able as the Minister of Food to do anything about it?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir; in this particular case I am clad to say there was no loss of foodstuffs because of the strike.

Mr. D. Marshall: What about fish?

Mr. Strachey: There was 12 cwt. of fish lost, but that might very easily be lost in the ordinary course of distribution.

Mr. Marshall: May I ask the Minister what was the loss of the carrying capacity in food for importation of those vessels through the delay in their turn-round?

Mr. Speaker: The Question deals with how much food has gone rotten and not with carrying capacity.

Cocoa Stocks

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food what stocks of cocoa were held in this country on 1st January, 1945, 1946 and 1947, respectively.

Mr. Strachey: It would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.

Mr. Fletcher: How is it that it would not be in the public interest to reveal these figures for cocoa when the Minister gave exactly the figures for tea the other day?

Mr. Strachey: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he suggest that I gave the figures for tea?

Mr. Fletcher: The Parliamentary Secretary gave them.

Mr. Strachey: Tea stocks in this country? No, Sir, she said that we were concerned at the level of tea stocks.

Mr. Fletcher: A figure was given showing a very large drop.

Dog Biscuits

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Food if he will improve the supply of dog biscuits in the South Eastern area.

Mr. Strachey: Supplies of dog biscuits are not large because of the shortage of flour. I know of no special difficulties in the South Eastern area.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the British people are determined to keep their dogs alive at all costs, and the only way to do it at the moment is by using their own rations and endangering their own lives?

Farm Workers

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Food whether the special food allowance extended to farm workers for seasonal tasks will be continued throughout the summer, having regard to the impossibility of foreseeing any slackening in work between now and the harvest.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, except for the seasonal occupations for which they are ordinarily available. We have already extended these allowances till the end of May and they will be restored for the harvest.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Having regard to the fact that agriculture is as important as the mining industry, and bearing in mind that the miner gets three or four times as much coal as the British housewife, would the right hon. Gentleman consider allocating three or four times more food to farmers and agricultural workers?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not forget that, in the case of cheese, the agricultural worker already gets six times more.

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Minister of Food for what reason food executive officers are refusing to issue for the month of May special rations for farm-workers intensively engaged in overtaking arrears of seasonal work.

Mr. Strachey: I know of no instance of their doing so, but if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have details of any case, I will look into the matter.

World Situation (Review)

Sir Arthur Salter: asked the Minister of Food when the next review of the general world food situation may be expected.

Mr. Strachey: We shall not know the 1947–48 position until this year's Northern Hemisphere harvests are gathered. When these can be assessed, I shall issue a further review of the world food position and more particularly of prospects for 1947–48.

Sir A. Salter: Does not the Minister remember that this review was promised as a regular quarterly publication, and it is row something like 10 months since the last edition? Would it not be a good thing to resume quarterly publication?

Mr. Strachey: I must admit that the review is in arrear and should be issued, but I would not like to issue it now until we can see what the harvest situation will be. I quite agree, however, that we ought to produce one in the near future.

Potato Subsidy Claims

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Food what steps are taken by his finance department at Oxford to check the accuracy of claims submitted by potato merchants in respect of subsidy; and, in particular, whether he is satisfied that there is any satisfactory check on claims with regard to variety, grade, class and weight.

Mr. Strachey: Merchants' subsidy claims are scrutinised at Oxford before payment; and afterwards a proportion of them is closely checked in all material particulars, comparison being made with growers' records in selected cases. There have been prosecutions in several cases where wrongful claims have been discovered on subsequent checking.

Colonel Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is commonly believed by honest merchants that there are others who receive large sums of public money to which they are not entitled? Is he also aware that in cases where a bona fide mistake is made, merchants are paid without question?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot say what the common belief amongst merchants is but I must point out that the potato merchants are a carefully controlled body

and licences are only issued to merchants whom the Ministry believe are reputable. On the other hand, I agree that it is of the greatest importance that a sufficiently large number of these returns should be checked, and I am looking into the matter.

Glucose (Retail Chemists)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Food whether a greater proportion of the available supplies of glucose will be allocated to retail chemists, in view of the difficulty they have at present in honouring prescriptions.

Mr. Strachey: I will see whether an increased proportion of the available supply can be diverted to retail chemists, although this can only take place at the expense of some other medical use. It would be helpful if all retailers of powdered glucose would take care to sell this scarce article only against medical certificates.

Mr. Skinnard: In view of the fact that a great number of retail chemists, especially, for instance, in North West Kent, are able to honour only one in ten of National Health prescriptions, will my right hon. Friend consider enlisting the assistance of the Pharmaceutical Society. to prevent the diversion of supplies for medical use to manufacturers?

Mr. Strachey: It is of great importance that these supplies should he reserved for those who need them and I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WINES AND SPIRITS (QUALITY AND PRICES)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if he has now received reports from the appropriate authorities and trade associations on the quality and prices of drinks offered for sale by the wine company, to which his attention was drawn by the hon. Member for Maldon; arid what action has been taken.

Mr. Strachey: I have received reports from the appropriate trade associations, who say that the wine company is not buying from any of their members. I have not found any grounds for drawing the attention of the local authorities to this particular case, but my Department has issued a circular to all local authorities about the enforcement of the Labelling of Food Order, 1946. Beyond


bringing the case to the notice of the Excise authorities I do not propose to take further action.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Has the Minister considered the effect on foreign visitors to this country of seeing shops full of wines and spirits at utterly exorbitant prices?

Mr. Strachey: That is an aspect of the situation which I do not like.

Oral Answers to Questions — STERLING BALANCES

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th May, with regard to sterling balances, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir; there is nothing new in this policy which, so far as sterling area countries are concerned, was explicitly set out in Article 10 of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement, approved by this House on 13th December, 1945.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But in view of the fact that only two months now remain before the Anglo-American Agreement will be brought into force, can the Prime Minister say, first, whether he is satisfied that His Majesty's Government will have concluded all negotiations by that time, and, secondly, when we may expect a statement from His Majesty's Government in concrete terms on this matter?

The Prime Minister: That is a question which ought to be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIANS, SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Prime Minister whether when the treatment of non-European communities by the Government of the Union of South Africa is discussed at the next meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the representatives of His Majesty's Government will be instructed to give no support to policies at variance with the Charter of the United Nations and the declared policy of His Majesty's Government themselves.

The Prime Minister: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the Resolution adopted at the last meeting of the Assembly of the United Nations in connection with the application made by the Government of India regarding the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa. The instructions to be given to the United Kingdom Government's representatives at the next Assembly, the precise nature of which will naturally depend upon the form in which the matter will come up, will continue to be based on the declared policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom which is founded on the Charter itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPERSONIC SOUND (EFFECT ON WORKERS)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Medical Research Council has yet completed its preliminary inquiries into the possible effects of supersonic sound upon the health of workers in the manufacture of turbo-jet aero-engines; and whether a programme of further research has been arranged.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am informed that the matter is under investigation by the Air Ministry. In view of this the Medical Research Council have not proceeded, with any investigations of their own.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already in my constituency a case of illness from this cause, and grave disquiet amongst the workers in this industry, and will he, therefore, do everything possible to expedite these inquiries?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep that in mind, and it will no doubt be noted by the Air Ministry who are concerned with this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Advisory Service

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement about the progress which is being made with the development of the Agricultural Advisory Service; and to what extent it will be in effective operation during 1947.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The National Agricultural Advisory Service was set up seven months ago and is now in effective operation though not yet at full strength. The eight provincial centres are in being, and the county staffs have been integrated with the county war agricultural executive committee organisation. In association with the provincial directors of the service the committees are playing an invaluable part in guiding the work of the county staffs and stimulating the interest of farmers and growers in the facilities the Service can provide. The work of the Service is under the general direction of a small staff of senior officers at Headquarters, who are closely associated with my Agricultural Improvement Council and through that body with the Agricultural Research Council. Owing to the severe and general shortage of suitably qualified men and women, the Service is at present one-third below strength; while building difficulties and shortages of scientific and other material are proving obstacles above all to the full equipment of the provincial centres and sub-centres. Everything possible is being done to resolve these difficulties and to bring the Service up to full strength and efficiency at the earliest practicable date.

Fowl Pest

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases of fowl pest have been notified; how many birds have been slaughtered during the past week; and what are the results of the discussions between officers of his Department and of the Ministry of Food as to the possibilities of lessening the risk of spreading this disease through the importation of dead poultry.

Mr. T. Williams: The number of outbreaks of fowl pest confirmed up to 8th May is 166. During the past week about 1,500 domestic fowls, 180 ducks and 20 geese have been slaughtered because of fowl pest. As to the last part of the Question, arrangements are being made for trial shipments of eviscerated poultry to be brought from central Europe. Pending the results of these trial shipments, none but eviscerated poultry will be imported from any country in Europe where fowl pest is prevalent.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: In view of the fact that these figures are still

going up, will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange with the Press and the B.B.C. that full publicity is given to fresh outbreaks, so that the country may be aware of the situation?

Mr. Williams: I can assure the noble Lord that we are using both the Press and the B.B.C. to notify both commercial and domestic poultry keepers of the danger of this fowl pest.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Could this not be treated as foot-and-mouth disease is treated, so that far greater publicity is given as regards outbreaks in various parts of the country?

Mr. Williams: I can only repeat that we have invited the B.B.C. to give us all the assistance they can, and they have very readily agreed to do it.

Dairy Cows (Rations)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that many farmers are dissatisfied with the allocation of rations for dairy cows during the present month; that in many areas, where pasture is not of first rate quality, the ration is insufficient to keep up milk production; and whether he will take steps to increase the ration during this and coming months.

Mr. T. Williams: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the present scale of rations for dairy cows or that it is normally insufficient to keep up milk production. The reserves of feedingstuffs placed at the disposal of W.A.E.Cs. for issue at their discretion are primarily intended to provide supplementary rations for individual farmers whose milk output is affected by poor growth of grass, and applications by such farmers for supplementary rations for this purpose are accorded a high degree of priority.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of farmers are having milk returned to them because of alleged deficiency in butter-fat content? To avoid wastage in this matter, which is largely attributable to shortage and deficiency of feedingstuffs for milking cows, can he make some temporary adjustment of the regulations governing the broad question of the quality of milk?

Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that no complaints of the kind


have been brought to my notice. Should any such complaints be brought to our notice, and we have supplies of feedingstuffs available, we shall readily do our best to meet the needs.

Mr. M. Philips Price: May I ask the Minister what steps are being taken to increase rations for dairy cows by purchases of feedingstuffs from abroad?

Mr. Williams: I think my hon. Friend is aware that we are buying as much feedingstuffs from abroad as is possible, and that on 1st May rations for all kinds of animals were increased.

Poultry (Hard Corn)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the additional supplies of hard corn for poultry breeding purposes are to be made available this season.

Mr. T. Williams: The increased rations for poultry, including poultry breeding stock, came into operation on 1st May. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the announcement. A proportion of hard corn may be obtained, if desired, against the monthly cereal coupons and the chick food coupons issued to poultry keepers eligible for rations.

Mrs. Middleton: While I thank the Minister for that reply, can he say when this will be available in the South Western district?

Mr. Williams: The increased rations were made available on 1st May

Derelict Land, Kingsbridge

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there is land lying derelict within the area of the Kingsbridge Rural District Council on which formerly crops of early potatoes were produced; and when he proposes to take steps to bring back this land into cultivation.

Mr. T. Williams: I understand that all arable land in the Kingsbridge Rural District Council's area has been scheduled for cropping this year, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the land she has in mind, I will make further inquiries.

RIVER SEVERN (NAVIGATION PLANS)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made, since the conference at Gloucester last summer called by the county N.F.U., in the examination by his Department of plans to improve the navigation of the Severn between Gloucestershire and Worcestershire prepared by the Severn Commission.

Mr. T. Williams: My Department is in close touch with the Ministry of Transport, the River Severn Catchment Board and the Severn Commission to ensure that agricultural interests are safeguarded in any scheme which may be adopted to provide improved navigation on the river.

Mr. Parkin: Will the Minister recollect that he gave an approximately similar reply to representations made 12 months ago, and will he answer the part of the Question which asks what progress has been made?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid I can only say that the representatives of my Department have been in consultation with both the Catchment Board and the Ministry of Transport to see what scheme or schemes can be undertaken to relieve that particular area. As to progress, I am afraid I can report very little at present.

Mr. Philips Price: Is it not a fact that a decision on the matter of the Severn navigation is not likely to be taken for a considerable time and, meanwhile, the Severn bank erosion is going on pretty rapidly? Cannot some urgent measures be taken in the meantime?

Mr. Williams: A decision by the Ministry of Transport or the proposed British Transport Commission on the proposals made by the Severn Commission, must be taken before the River Severn Catchment Board can determine finally what step should be taken to improve certain stretches of the river.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Charges (Increases)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give an assurance that passenger and freight rail rates will not be further increased this year.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I can give no such assurance. I stated in February that the Charges Consultative Committee had recommended certain increases in railway charges, and that the Government had decided to review the position at the end of March in the light of further experience of the trends of receipts and expenditure. It now appears that, apart from the effects of the severe weather and the fuel crisis in the first quarter of this year, other factors are affecting net revenue adversely. To the end of March, the pooled net revenue of the railway companies fell short of the appropriate proportion of the fixed annual sums payable to them by about £18 million. It is estimated that this deficiency will increase to about £23 million by 30th June, and possibly to about £32 million by the end of the year. These estimates justify increases substantially in excess of those recommended by the Committee, and the Government are giving close consideration to the steps necessary to meet the position.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just given an account of what is a most depressing future for the industry? Is he aware that under nationalisation the charges will be further increased, and, in view of the present condition of the country economically, will he give an assurance to the public and to traders that the charges will not be increased?

Mr. Barnes: I have already stated that I can give no assurance. This has nothing to do with the form of control of the railways. The railways would have been in a worse position if they were not under control.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What becomes of the promise of cheap and efficient transport under nationalisation?

Hon. Members: Wait and see.

Mr. Barnes: That is a question which, later on, the noble Lord might be in a better position to judge

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that paying subsidies to private enterprise on this scale is not justified?

Mr. Barnes: I do not think the question arises. The control agreement is in order at the present moment, and the State must meet its obligations, like everyone else.

Mr. Keeling: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's estimate takes account of the claim for about £70 million per annum extra pay from the railway staffs?

Mr. Barnes: I do not quite see the connection, and, in any case, these are not my estimates, but the railway companies' estimates.

Employees' Savings Banks

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Transport what will be the effect of the Transport Bill upon railway employees' savings banks, especially regarding trusteeships, powers to invest deposits, persons entitled to make deposits, the rate of interest payable on deposits and the presentation of accounts.

Mr. Barnes: The Commission will inherit precisely the same rights and liabilities as the railway companies now possess. While the Commission would have no power to abrogate any rights of depositors, they will no doubt wish to consider whether as a matter of long-term policy the facilities for saving by their staff should not be assimilated to those provided by the National Savings movement.

Major Legge-Bourke: Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the National Union of Railwaymen and other unions on this matter before the Transport Bill was presented?

Mr. Barnes: Not before the Transport Bill was presented, but later, yes.

Children's Tickets

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the adjustment of the age-limit for children's tickets on the railways to correspond with the school-leaving age.

Mr. Barnes: Not yet, Sir. It is necessary to consider this matter in relation to the general financial position of the railways about which I have answered another Question.

Mr. Symonds: Can the Minister say how soon we may expect an answer on this matter, as it affects the summer holidays and is causing muddle and anxiety to people who are trying to spread over their summer holidays?

Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend knows that this is for general casual travel and not for travel for education purposes, and in view of the figures I have given previously, I am afraid that I must consider this in relation to other financial problems of the railways.

Mid-week Travel

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Transport if railway fares will be reduced for mid-week travel during the holiday season, in order to prevent congestion at week-ends.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Cross-Channel Services, Northern Ireland

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that sailing tickets for journeys to Northern Ireland are being brought into use early next month; and whether it is possible to avoid this serious inconvenience to the travelling public by putting more cross-channel steamers into use.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. Reintroduction for the summer period is necessary to avoid the inconvenience to the travelling public which would otherwise be experienced during a period of heavy travel. All

The following statement, based on information supplied by the Board of Trade, shows the number of vessels that arrived and departed with cargo at the port of London during each month from January, 1946, to March, 1947, inclusive:

—
Arrived.
Departed.


Foreign Trade.
Coasting Trade.
Total.
Foreign Trade.
Coasting Trade.
Total.


1946.









January
…
191
674
865
256
218
474


February
…
190
621
811
217
225
442


March
…
226
770
996
225
338
563


April
…
269
620
889
301
277
578


May
…
271
711
982
322
290
612


June
…
307
643
950
293
287
580


July
…
355
672
1,027
347
246
593


August
…
388
611
999
326
276
602


September
…
423
687
1,110
330
253
583


October
…
455
761
1,216399
267
666


November
…
393
725
1,118
364
247
611


December
…
417
702
1,119
338
256
594


1947









January
…
371
736
1,107
312
247
559


February
…
308
682
990
259
221
480


March
…
399
801
1,200
296
293
589

available vessels will be in use at the peak periods.

Sir R. Ross: Does that mean that all the vessels normally employed and built for those services will be used, and would the right hon. Gentleman say what he considers to be the peak period?

Mr. Barnes: I do not wish to convey the impression that it will make their maximum number of sailings possible. We must have regard to the overall coal savings which the railways and similar services must obtain during this period, but undoubtedly they will be augmented.

Sir R. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if other services besides those carrying people to Ireland will make a similar saving? So far it is entirely confined to services to Ireland.

Cargo Tonnage, London and Glasgow

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Transport the number of cargo-carrying ships entering and leaving the Port of London; and the tonnage weight of cargo carried for each month in 1946–47 to the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Barnes: As the reply includes a large number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following information has been supplied to me by the Port Of London
Authority and shows the tonnage of imports and exports and transhipments for the quarters ending
30th September and 31st December, 1946:


—
Quarter ended 30th September.
Quarter ended 31st December
Total for six months.



tons.
tons.
tons.


Overseas Imports
2,842,093
2,360,171
5,202,264


Overseas Exports
655,873
817,202
1,473,075


Total, Overseas Trade
3,497,966
3,177,373
6,675,339


Coasting Imports
3,453,486
3,616,538
7,070,024


Coasting Exports
294,074
352,693
646,767


Total, Coasting Trade
3,747,560
3,969,231
7,716,791


Transhipments Inwards
202,602
265,221
467,823


Transhipments Outwards
202,602
265,221
467,823


Total, Transhipments
405,204
530,442
935,646


Grand Total of Imports, Exports and Transhipments
7,650,730
7,677,046
15,327,776

The analysis of imports and exports was discontinued by the Port of London Authority during the war. It was only re-started on the 1st July, 1946, and figures are available for these two quarters only.

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Transport the number of cargo-carrying ships entering and leaving the Port of Glasgow; and the tonnage weight of cargo carried in each month for a year ended at the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Barnes: As the reply includes a large number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commander Maitland: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if his answer includes the size of the ships involved in each

The following statement based on information supplied by the Board of Trade
shows the number of vessels that arrived and departed with cargo at the port of Glasgow during
each month from April, 1946, to March, 1947, inclusive:


Arrived.
Departed.


—
Foreign trade.
Coasting trade.
Total.
Foreign trade.
Coasting trade.
Total


1946.









April
…
52
249
301
55
220
275


May
…
58
239
297
50
225
275


June
…
47
281
328
48
261
309


July
…
37
311
348
43
268
311


August
…
54
307
361
55
260
315


September
…
77
252
329
64
227
291


October
…
95
235
330
83
244
327


November
…
81
234
315
73
231
304


December
…
64
232
296
76
208
284


1947.








January
…
72
208
280
53
218
271


February
…
56
165
221
52
195
247


March
…
53
219
272
37
211
248

case—that is not specifically asked, but it is important?

Mr. Rankin: Would it be possible in circulating the reply, for my right hon. Friend also to give the total labour force in the Port of London, and in the Port of Glasgow?

Mr. Barnes: Both those supplementary questions raise points that were not in the Question. I shall be happy to furnish that information in reply to Questions put down to me.

Following is the reply:

The following information has been supplied to me by the Clyde Navigation Trust and shows the tonnage of imports and exports for each month from April, 1946, to March, 1947, inclusive:


—
Foreign.
Coastwise.




Imports.
Exports 
Imports.
Exports.




tons.
tons.
tons.
tons.


1946







April
…
236,901
61,909
71,536
82,438


May
…
262,339
64,547
78,203
81,336


June
…
242,912
60,555
75,139
79,302


July
…
223,691
47,979
64,479
73,873


August
…
187,169
41,952
60,128
70,061


September
…
272,358
52,243
70,533
80,698


October
…
241,797
53,320
74,260
87,378


November
…
249,509
48,690
76,109
90,117


December
…
348,190
54,293
68,703
87,025


1947







January
…
223,853
59,167
57,317
73,071


February
…
181,567
22,755
58,535
60,976


March
…
209,225
60,034
59,548
65,678




2,879,511
627,444
814,490
931,953

Oral Answers to Questions — L.P.T.B.

Staggered Hours, London Offices

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has now been made in the staggering of hours of work in London offices to reduce the pressure upon transport services during the peak periods; and, in particular, what contribution Government offices are making in this direction.

Mr. Barnes: Negotiations are proceeding, and agreement has already been reached with many firms, which are making the necessary adjustments. Government offices have had staggered working hours for some years past and certain adjustments are now being considered to fit in with the general plan.

Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the population of Greater London is increasing on an average by 45,000 each month, and that by the end of this year it will be greater than the 1938 population, and that that in turn will greatly affect this peak traffic problem? Is he satisfied that arrangements are being made to meet that?

Mr. Barnes: I am aware of the increase of population, but I am not satisfied that

we can make an entirely satisfactory arrangement. However, the process of encouraging the staggering of hours does help to lessen the problem

Children's Tickets

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport when the L.P.T.B. propose to introduce the two-thirds fare season tickets for juveniles aged 16 and 17 years.

Mr. Barnes: The necessary Statutory Order is now being prepared, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to give the date on which the new arrangement will come into force.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Minister of Transport, in regard to this and a lot of other questions, whether he has ever heard of a vicious spiral? If not, will he see that this is a disastrous process?

Mr. Barnes: I have heard of more than one vicious spiral.

Tramways Services, South London

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience suffered by travellers in South London through the increasingly


frequent breakdown of tramcars; and what steps are being taken to improve the service.

Mr. Barnes: Difficulties have been caused by a shortage of spare parts. This is being overcome, with progressive improvement in maintenance.

Oral Answers to Questions — INLAND TRANSPORT

Increased Fares (Revenue)

Major Bruce: asked the Minister of Transport the approximate sum of extra revenue accruing to date to the transport undertakings concerned as a result of the passenger fare increases approved by him during the past fiscal year.

Mr. Barnes: The amount of additional receipts resulting from the increases in passenger fares introduced on the main line railways and the Green Line Coaches on 1st July, 1946, and on the road and rail services on the London Passenger Transport Board on 9th February, 1947, was approximately £14 millions up to 27th April last.

Major Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no part of this increase is going towards the advertising campaign of the railway companies and road hauliers on the subject of nationalisation, and if so, can he give any idea where the quarter of a million pounds is coming from for that purpose?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot determine how railways distribute their dividends. Later on, of course, that will not arise.

European Organisation (Governments' Subscriptions)

Mr. Douglas Jay: asked the Minister of Transport whether he anticipates that the European Central Inland Transport Organisation may have to shut down shortly owing to the failure of certain Member Governments to pay their agreed contributions towards its expenditure; what Governments are involved; what are the amounts outstanding; and up to what date have full subscriptions been paid.

Mr. Barnes: The total amount of unpaid subscription at the present time is £129,500. Of this sum £95,000 is represented by half of the U.S.S.R. subscription for the last financial year and the whole of their subscription for the current financial year. The delay in paying the

balance of the other subscriptions arises, I understand, mainly from currency difficulties. The attention of the Soviet Authorities has been drawn to the critical financial position in which the Organisation will shortly find itself if their outstanding subscriptions are not paid forthwith.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does this organisation serve any important British interests, and if not why are we being asked as one of two Governments to raise our contribution?

Mr. Barnes: We are not one of two Governments. I have replied to a specific Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Safety Barriers, Clevedon

Mr. Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will inquire into the need for safety barriers outsides those schools in Clevedon which are on the main through road, as this matter has now been under consideration for some months by the Somerset County Council, without result.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): The local education authority are considering the need for the provision of safety barriers outside schools on the Class II road B.3130 in Clevedon, and as far as I am aware, the negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the Minister also aware that if matters are proceeding satisfactorily they are proceeding in such a leisurely way that neither the inhabitants nor the headmaster nor the headmistress of the school can possibly be satisfied? Could he not do something to speed up matters? This has been going on for a year.

Mr. Strauss: This is primarily the responsibility of the Somerset County Council. Inquiries have been made quite recently by the Ministry of Education, and maybe this Question, which the hon. Member has asked, may hasten the matter in some respects.

Tour, Blackpool-Scarborough

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Transport why the Traffic Commissioner for the North-west Area refused an appli-


cation from the Batty-Holt Touring Service, Limited, Blackpool, to operate a five days' tour to Scarborough.

Mr. Barnes: According to my information, this application was withdrawn on 30th April before it could be heard at a public sitting.

Mr. Spearman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather hard that these people who live in Blackpool should not have the same chance of getting to Scarborough as people from other areas?

Mr. Barnes: I do not think that question arises. I am dealing with a specific allegation which, as far as I can see, has no substance.

Mr. Spearman: If I send the right hon. Gentleman full particulars will he have an inquiry made?

Mr. Barnes: I will certainly look into any information which the hon. Gentleman cares to submit to me.

Selby Toll Bridge

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department or the county councils of the West Riding and East Riding of Yorkshire are primarily responsible for negotiating with the owners of Selby Toll Bridge; and whether, and on what date, negotiations for the purchase of the toll rights were initiated.

Mr. Barnes: On 20th January, 1947, my Department, which, in agreement with the county councils, is taking the initiative in this matter, requested the chief valuer to undertake negotiations for a provisional settlement.

Colonel Ropner: How is it that the Minister has been able to tell me by successive answers in the last few months that negotiations are proceeding while I have information from the owners of the bridge that the first approach made to them by the Ministry was about a fortnight ago?

Mr. Barnes: What course the valuer is taking in the matter is one for him, but in view of the inquiries which I have made into this I should like to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am calling for a special report, as my Department is very anxious to facilitate the removal of these toll bridges.

Traffic Congestion, London (New Order)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received any recommendations from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on the relief of traffic congestion in London; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. On the advice of the Committee, I have made an Order, to come into force on 27th of this month, prohibiting the waiting of vehicles between 11.30 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, on about 10 miles of the principal thoroughfares in Central London. Passenger vehicles will be permitted to stop only long enough to set down and pick up passengers, and goods vehicles to wait only while loading and unloading, and, even then, for not longer than 20 minutes. In addition, the Order will prohibit street trading in these streets on ail weekdays, except under licence. The restrictions on slow moving traffic which were in force in the West End before the war will be re-imposed on the same date, and I also propose shortly to make Regulations imposing similar restrictions in certain of the main streets in the City.

Maintenance (Reduced Grants)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Transport why the table relating to the reduction in road grants does not include the Isle of Ely, the county council for which has been informed of cuts of 27 per cent. on class one road, 24 per cent. on class two roads and 78 per cent. on class three roads in the councils estimates; and what steps he proposes to take in view of the fact that flood damage to roads in the Isle of Ely is estimated at £11,000 and frost damage at £9,000.

Mr. Barnes: The figures relating to road maintenance in the Isle of Ely were not received from my regional office in time, for inclusion in the table which was printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In deciding the proportion of the County Council's estimates towards which grants will be available, account has been taken of local conditions, including frost and flood damage. According to my information, the figures of frost and flood damage quoted by the hon. and gallant Member


include some £8,500 for damage to trunk roads, which will be borne entirely by the Road Fund.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem is by no means confined to the Isle of Ely and that all his policy amounts to is the erection of "Road up" signs instead of "Road works ahead"?

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Transport if he will specify the areas in which road maintenance is covered by the block grant.

Mr. Barnes: The Local Government Acts of 1929 which instituted the block grant, provided for the discontinuance of classification grants in respect of Class I and Class II roads and bridges in London, in county boroughs in England and Wales and in large burghs in Scotland, and of grants for the maintenance of unclassified roads in counties.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he took to ascertain conditions in Warwickshire, including damage done to classified roads by frosts, snow and floods, before deciding what amount of the county council's estimated expenditure on road maintenance should rank for grant in 1947–48; and why he failed to consult the Warwickshire County Council before reaching a decision.

Mr. Barnes: My divisional road engineers are in constant touch with the officials of the county councils in their areas and are fully conversant with local conditions.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Warwickshire County Council are unable to carry out the repairs for which they have estimated and for which they are entitled to grants they will have to discharge labourers; and that if further repairs are not made it will lead to a general aggravation of the position?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman must recollect that this is a universal problem. and I cannot treat one county differently from another.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not the right hon. Gentleman discriminating between different counties? Has he not already said so?

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the decision he has made in regard to road grants is

going to throw the country into complete confusion, and that unless some steps are taken to rectify these enormous cuts a great many roads will have to be closed down throughout the country?

Mr. Barnes: I greatly appreciate the difficulties involved, but, after all, in spreading the available funds we have to take into consideration the complete range and responsibility of all the highways in this country.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the county councils were encouraged to put in pretty high estimates as the result of the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman in January, 1946, and that this latest announcement has come as a complete surprise to them and has thrown their plans and budgets for the year completely out of gear?

Mr. Lipson: What steps are being taken to meet the shortage of labour and materials?

Mr. Barnes: I do not think it is primarily a question of shortage of material and labour, but a question of the allocation.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer to this Question and Question No. 78, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

BOMBING EXERCISES, WILTSHIRE

Mr. Hollis: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that considerable damage to property in Urchfont, Market Lavington and Easterton was caused by the use of 4,000 lb. bombs in the vicinity of R.A.F. exercises on Friday afternoon; that widespread anxiety in the neighbourhood has been caused by an announcement that there will be an even heavier exercise tomorrow, Tuesday, and whether he can give an assurance that that exercise will take place under conditions that can cause no damage to civilian property.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I am much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for this opportunity to express my great regret


that damage and alarm should have been caused in Market Lavington, Easterton and Urchfont by the dropping of 4,000 lb. bombs on the artillery range of Larkhill on Friday last. In the past 4,000 lb. bombs have, in fact, been safely used on this range, and on Friday the bombs fell nearly 2¾ miles from the nearest village. But, in view of what happened on Friday, the Air Council have now given orders that no bomb heavier than 500 lb. shall be used in the demonstration which is to take place to-morrow. I am satisfied that no danger can result from the use of these much smaller bombs.

Mr. Hollis: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, which will give very great satisfaction to the people of Wiltshire?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has a statement to make about any rearrangement of Business this week in respect of the National Service Bill?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Government hope to conclude the Committee stage later this week after other Business on either Wednesday or Thursday.

DIVISION No. 189 (CORRECTED FIGURES)

MR. SNOW (LORD OF THE TREASURY) and Mr. EMRYS ROBERTS, the Tellers in the Aye Division Lobby in Division No. 189 on Wednesday, 7th May, came to the Table.

Mr. Snow: We have to report that in the 10 o'clock Division on 7th May on the National Service Bill on the Question "That the word 'twelve' be there inserted," we erroneously reported the number of the "Ayes" as 368 instead of 358. which was the correct number.

Mr. Speaker: In view of that correction, I will see that the necessary entry is made in the Journal.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Ernest Fernyhough, Esquire, for the County of Durham (Jarrow Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for Two hours after Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

HIS MAJESTY'S RETURN FROM SOUTH AFRICA

3.35 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, assuring His Majesty, on the occasion of his return from the Union of South Africa, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to His Majesty, to Her Majesty the Queen and to Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret.
On 27th January I moved that an Address should be presented to His Majesty the King on the occasion of His Majesty's departure with Her Majesty the Queen and Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret for South Africa. The whole country is today greeting their safe return home after a most successful visit. This House will wish to express to Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses their loyal and affectionate welcome. It is, I think, a happy coincidence that this day is also the tenth anniversary of Their Majesties' Coronation. This occasion, therefore, gives us the opportunity of paying a tribute to the devoted work which they have done throughout these years, both in peace and war—work which has strengthened the bonds which unite people and Throne.
Throughout these years, Their Majesties have shared in the joys and sorrows of their people and have set us all a fine example. I know that during these weeks of absence Their Majesties have followed with anxious sympathy the hardships which the unforeseen rigours of prolonged and severe winter inflicted on the nation. I know how willingly they would have returned to share them, had it been deemed necessary, but to have done so, would have been to give deep disappointment to our fellow-subjects in South Africa who, for the first time in their history, have been enabled to welcome in person their King and Queen.
We have all learned from the admirable reports in the Press and on the radio, and from the pictures in the newsreels, the enthusiastic welcome with which Their Majesties have been greeted in every part of South Africa, in the Union, in Northern and Southern Rhodesia and in the three Protectorates. We had not expected anything else, but every account has shown that the warmth of this welcome has exceeded all expectations. South Africa is a country of divers races and varying histories and traditions, but all alike were united in their desire to show their affection and respect for their Sovereign. I think that the people in South Africa were impressed not only by the zeal with which Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses carried through their very heavy programme of official functions, but by their actions on less formal occasions which displayed what we have already known so well—their broad human sympathy for all sorts and conditions of men.
We are grateful to all those who, throughout the tour, have devoted themselves to ensuring the comfort and wellbeing of Their Majesties. We are all glad to have Their Majesties home again, and to know that they have, through this visit, strengthened the ties of friendship between Great Britain and South Africa.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I wish to associate myself and the Conservative Opposition with the Motion which the Prime Minister has moved. We are all cordially ranged with the right hon. Gentleman on this question and his happily-worded speech leaves little need for addition. We all sympathise with the feelings of the King and Queen when they were in South African sunshine, while the rigours of the winter descended upon us here. It must have been, we know, a great worry and preoccupation to them not to be with us, as the King and Queen always have been with us in all the dark, unpleasant moments through which we have passed. It appears to me, and, I believe, to my friends on this side, that the constitutional advice, tendered by the Prime Minister and by the Government to the Crown, that the tour should continue, was entirely in the national, Commonwealth and Imperial interest, and was in every respect wise and correct. We have read in the papers of the festivities which have taken place, of the many

picturesque receptions held, of the welcome given by varied races, of the journeys that have been made and of the survey made by their Majesties of the wide panorama of South Africa. One must not forget, although each of these ceremonies in itself is a matter of great pleasure to the principal personages concerned, nevertheless, taken in a long unending routine, they become a very serious strain upon physical, mental and moral strength. To be continually presented with these demonstrations of affection and loyalty, and to receive them with such unfailing graciousness and untiring good will is, indeed, a great achievement, but it must not be supposed that it does not involve heavy toil, nor must it be supposed that it has not brought with it great advantages, as the Prime Minister has said, both to South Africa, and to the larger organism of which South Africa forms so romantic and interesting a part.
The Prime Minister reminds us also that the homecoming of Their Majesties and the Princesses corresponds with the anniversary of the tenth year of the King's reign. What a period of peril and torment we have had to live through. Yet all the strains and stresses which we have all undergone, and in which the King and Queen and the Royal Family have shared to the utmost of their power, never failing in their duty—all these stresses have only resulted in making more secure and solid the foundations of our institutions in this country, and increasing the loyalty and love formed by all parties to the King and Queen, in the discharge of the great constitutional office entrusted to them.

3.44 P.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, be permitted to support the Motion moved by the Prime Minister, and to express the heartfelt gratitude of everyone in this country to Their Majesties who have undertaken this memorable tour? We extend to them our humble and sincere congratulations on the outstanding success they have achieved. It has re-emphasised the bond of friendship and good will which binds all the people of South Africa with this country.

3.45 P.m.

Sir Stanley Holmes: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I beg to support the Motion. The words so


appropriately used by my right hon. Friends have obviously met with the approval of every Member in the House. The Royal House, for many generations, has increasingly gained the loyalty and affection of the people of this country and of the Empire, by reason of the high characters of our Kings and Queens, and their deep devotion to the public service. Within the memory of some of us Queen Victoria, King Edward and Queen Alexandra, King George and Queen Mary have all displayed these supreme qualities of sovereignty. Today, we can acclaim that our present King and Queen and the Princesses are tried and worthy followers in the same tradition. It is therefore right and fitting that at the conclusion of their long and arduous visit to South Africa, we as a House, on behalf of the people of this country, should humbly declare our homage, our regard and our gratitude.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, nemine contradicente:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, assuring His Majesty, on the occasion of his return from the Union of South Africa, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to His Majesty, to Her Majesty the Queen and to Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

3.49 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to raise a point of Order affecting today's Business, which is of importance to Members in every part of the House. The Amendment Paper, containing the proposed Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill, is 75 pages long. It contains about 400 Amendments, more than half of which are Government Amendments. This formidable document was not in the hands of hon. Members in its marshalled form until today, when we have to proceed at

once with consideration of the Bill. As far as the Opposition Amendments are concerned, we had to wait until the Government Amendments were all put down before we could judge how far the Minister had been able to give effective consideration to the points raised in Standing Committee. By a very hard effort we managed to get our Amendments down by Wednesday, and we sent a copy to the right hon. Gentleman. The fact remains that hon. Members generally had no chance of seeing the Amendments in their marshalled form until today. Those who have had experience of the House know the zeal and efficiency of those who serve us in these matters—the Clerks and printers—too well to believe for a moment that these lamentable happenings are due to any default on their part. It is quite evident that this zealous and efficient machine is breaking down under the strain being placed upon it by the Government, and I ask that the Government will either take steps to reinforce that machine, without whose workings we in this House cannot perform our duty efficiently, or will consider and modify their time-table so as to have some regard to those Clerks and printers without whose loyal work we could not do our duty in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know that there is much for which I can answer. I suffer from the same disability as all other hon. Members inasmuch as it was only this morning that I saw the complete Amendments. I had great difficulty on Friday, with Amendments all over the place, trying to go through them for selection. I am perfectly certain that it is not the fault of the compositors. The House must remember that after we have finished our business, they have to set up for six or seven hours. When we have an all-night Sitting—and we are sitting late every night—it puts an intolerable strain upon them. However, we are going to look into the whole matter to see if it can be altered. I, personally, intend to see what I can do; I will do what falls within my power to see whether, in future, we can get Amendments in a reasonable time. I say that for my own convenience, as well as that of hon. Members.

Sir Peter Macdonald: As a Member of a Standing Committee which has met once a week, upstairs, taking evidence from witnesses, we have


been in some difficulty, Mr. Speaker. We have not been able to get reports of our meetings in time for the following week. That is a situation which has never happened before in my experience and I have served on the Estimates Committee for 20 years. I hope that steps will be taken to get the report of a meeting made available before we hold the following meeting. It is impossible to follow everything unless we have a report of the previous meeting.

Mr. Eden: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that we are not going to be put into this sort of position again? We are, here, dealing with a Measure which has been handled under an imposed Government time-table in the form of the Guillotine, and it is not reasonable to say to the House, "Your time for discussion will be severely limited by this process," and, "You will not have an opportunity of examining the Amendments you are asked to discuss until the morning of the day on which you are asked to discuss them."

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I can assure the right lion. Gentleman and the House that we shall do everything we can to meet the convenience of the House. But I think his judgment is a little harsh. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I am advised that up to, and including, 1st May—and it is now 12th May—172 Government Amendments had been put down, as against the present total of 219. Moreover, I am further advised that the majority of the Amendments put down since 1st May are either drafting points, or are consequential on earlier Amendments, or deal with minor points; in particular, they fulfil promises given in Committee. I am told that the only points of substance are two Amendments put down on 7th May—and I repeat that this is 12th May—to extend the compulsory purchasing powers of the Central Land Board, and to extend the 'powers for stopping up highways. Since 7th May it is true that 30 Amendments have been put down, but in relation to 200, that is not too bad. The only major points which are covered in those 30 Amendments are the application of the Bill to charity lands, and provisions to enable the metropolitan boroughs to acquire open spaces. That being so, the prima

facie case of criticism of my right hon. Friend in this matter is not as big as it would appear first sight.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not really time that the right hon. Gentleman abandoned the farce of pretending that Measures which are being passed into law are receiving the careful study and discussion of the House of Commons? First, these Measures are sent upstairs, and nine-tenths of the Members are not allowed to take part in shaping matters which greatly affect their constituents or the country generally. Next, there is a vast mass of Amendments cast upon us, some of a beneficial character, some of a mitigating character, but none the less all requiring to be discussed. Under a fixed time table, this business is thrust through. To call that Parliamentary Government, and the making of laws by Parliament, is an abuse of those terms, and the right hon. Gentleman should be aware that there will undoubtedly be a feeling that the Parliamentary freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed have been definitely abrogated, and brought into diminishing effect.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like to point out that the Government Amendments came on to the Order Paper as lately as 8th May—last Thursday. During the long Committee stage, the Minister gave undertakings to consider many of the points we raised. We had to wait until all his Amendments were on the Paper before we knew what effect, if any, the Minister's subsequent consideration had had. It is not right for the Leader of the House to say that we should proceed on the assumption that the Amendments which came out as late as Thursday last, are of no importance.

Mr. H. Morrison: These Amendments were put down on 7th May and published in the Order Paper on 8th May. For this limited number I do not think that that is too bad. My right hon. Friend has done everything he could to consider favourably and fully the representations which he received from the Opposition. That must take a little time. He could have brushed all these things aside in Committee, and said he would not consider them, but he has wished to consider them. The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was in the nature of an oration rather than a supplementary question. He should not be


shocked about Bills going to Committee upstairs. He always scorns Committees of the House as if they are incapable of examining Bills in Committee. This business of Bills going upstairs was invented by himself and his colleagues in the Liberal Government of 1906, and we are following that admirable example.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like to make it clear that we are making no complaint against the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I do not think he has taken an undue time in putting down his Amendments. My complaint is against the Leader of the House and the Government for rushing the business of the House so as not to allow a decent interval between the publishing of Amendments, and their consideration on Report.

Mr. Clement Davies: It is not merely a question which concerns this Bill. We are making no complaint against the Minister of Town and Country Planning who, undoubtedly, with his Department, has been tremendously overworked. This is only one of a great number of Measures in regard to which the House is not being given a fair chance. Taking this Bill as a whole, it is one of which most of us are in favour, but it affects not only national rights but local government and individuals' rights. We are anxious that the whole matter should be carefully considered, and wish to make our contributions as best we can. But the time is very very short. The House and its officials are being overworked.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Without wishing to enter into the wider ramifications of this matter, I should like to make a brief comment on the statement of the Leader of the House about the time table for this Bill. The Committee stage finished on 2nd April. The Amendments of the Minister of Town and Country Planning did not start to be tabled until 1st May. Therefore, there was one month taken up by the Minister of Town and Country Planning in the preparation of his Amendments. The Opposition Amendments had to wait on consideration of the Amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman. We would have got them on the Paper by Wednesday last, but for the delay caused by the overtaxing of the Parliamentary machine, and the consequent failure to print. I submit, therefore, that even on the facts put forward by the Lord

President of the Council, it is clear that Parliament has been prevented by the time-table, from doing its proper duty of scrutinising all these Amendments before their consideration on Report.

4.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: May I ask whether it would be in Order, Mr. Speaker, for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, if he felt it possible to do so, to apologise to the House for the way in which he has treated it?

Mr. H. Morrison: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), he is quite wrong. The Minister did not start putting his Amendments down on 1st May. He started on 24th April.

Mr. Walker-Smith: How many?

Mr. H. Morrison: As a matter of fact, by 1st May there was either this number of Amendments or more than this number. It looks as if there were 153 Amendments down. They started on 24th April; there were more on the 28th, and more on the 30th. The Opposition really are rather reckless in the way they throw facts about.

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask consideration from the Government Front Bench for this point? Fifty or 60 hon. Members served on the Committee on this Bill. They have been in continuous contact with the subject-matter of the Bill, and are aware of undertakings given by the Minister. If the undertakings are implemented by Amendments, they will be able rapidly to assess how far the Amendments meet the pledges given. But if there were 50 hon. Members serving on the Committee upstairs, there are 570 hon. Members who have not served on that Committee. These Amendments reached me this morning at nine o'clock. How a Member who has not served on the Committee upstairs is to be expected to relate this massive wad of Amendments to a Bill already massive in itself, and do so by 3.20 in the afternoon, passes my comprehension. May I respectfully urge the Government to do one of two things: either accommodate their programme to the machine, or make the machine adequate to meet the programme?

Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is trying to keep up with the Conserva-


tives, as he so often does, in exaggerating the situation. He should, know that the great bulk of the Amendments, and the "great wad," which he has quoted, have been in his hands, or ought to have been, for quite a long time.

Mr. Churchill: I do not know why the Leader of the House should be trying so hard to keep up with the levelling doctrines destructive of Parliamentary government, which hitherto have been the perquisites of the Communists.

Mr. Beswick: Since the question of sending this Bill upstairs to a Standing Committee of 50 Members has been raised, might I mention that at the Second Reading, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning introduced this Bill, there were 14 Members of the Conservative Party in this House as a maximum at any given time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I was there, and I say that there were only 14 Members—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting on to quite a different question.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Conservative exaggeration. May I invite him to consult his colleague the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and to ask him whether I am exaggerating in saying this: The Amendments put down for this Report stage by the Government alone cannot be discussed adequately in the two and a half days given for the discussion?

Mr. H. Morrison: As there is a Guillotine operating, I think that the sooner we start Business on the Bill the better.

Mr. Frank Byers: I submit that there is a very important matter of principle involved here. It is that adequate time is not being allowed for Parliamentary discussion of this and other Measures, and I would like to ask the Leader of the House—[Interruption].

Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. It is bad enough to have one's motives publicly impugned by the Leader of the House, but is it in Order for him to make offensive remarks when an hon. Member is speaking?

Mr. Byers: I do not suppose that it will be the last time that. I shall be offended by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Medland: I sincerely hope not.

Mr. Byers: How is it that the Government have changed their views now that they are a Government, from those which they held when they were in Opposition some time ago?

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the Guillotine. That has been decided by the House, and I cannot go back on a decision of the House. The point of Order is concerned merely with the late printing of Amendments.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 24, page 27, line 43; Clause 26, page 32, line 29; Clause 42, page 46, line 17 and line 42; Clause 42, page 53, line 36; Clause 50, page 56, line 9; Clause 59, page 63, line 34; Clause 62, page 66, line 15. line 25 and line 42; Clause 73, page 79, line 15 and line 31; Clause 73, page 80, line 5; Clause 84, page 91, line 18, line 24 and line 26; Clause 86, page 93, line 3; Clause 87, page 93, line 28; Clause 90, page 95. line 40, line 42 and line 44; Clause 90, page 96, line 2; Clause 93, page 98, line 18, line 23, line 25, line 28, line 33 and line 34; Clause 93, page 99, line 5 and line 11; Clause 104, page 105, line 33, line 34 and line 37; Clause 105. page 106, line 35; Clause 105, page 107, line 16; Clause 105, page 108, line 19; in respect of the new Clauses (Abolition of the 1939 standard for compensation on compulsory acquisition); (Compensation for compulsory acquisition after the appointed day); (Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession); (Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land attracting converted value payments); (Compensation for compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land); (Compensation for compulsory acquisition after passing of this Act and before the appointed day); and (Power of Ministers to contribute towards compensation paid by local authorities); in respect of the amendments to Schedule 3, page 116, line 41; Schedule 4, page 117, line 33; Schedule 4, page 118, line 18; Schedule 7, page 125, line 21 and line 30; Schedule 8, page 132, line 24; and in respect of the new Schedule (Modifications of Part II of Town and Country Planning Act, 1944) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Silkin.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, at the end, to add:
and of the Amendments to Clause 5, page 5, line 44; Clause 20, page 21, line 42; Clause 46, page 52, line 31; Clause 51, page 57, line 20; Clause 69, page 74, line 20; Clause 86, page 93, line and of the new Clause (Agreement under previous Acts) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Morrison.


We are not objecting to the recommittal of the Bill, but we think that, on the advice which we have received, these further Clauses should also be reconsidered.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Surveys of planning areas and preparation of development plans.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(d) An owner of any land designated as subject to compulsory acquisition as aforesaid may at any time after approval of such designation by the Minister give notice in writing to the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated requiring that council to purchase his interest in the land within the period specified in the notice, not being less than three months from the date of such notice, and thereupon the council shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof upon the date of the service of the said notice, and the power conferred by subsection (2) of section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to withdraw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat which is deemed to have been served by virtue of this subsection.
With the departure from the Chamber of the Lord President of the Council, whose intervention in these proceedings has been as unprofitable as it has been casual, we may perhaps return to consideration of the more important matters with which the Committee is concerned. In moving this Amendment, I am bound to say it is in some degree illustrative of the difficulties in which the arbitrary procedure applied to this Bill has placed Parliament in its consideration of it. This Amendment was, in fact, tabled during the Committee stage. It was not moved on account of the application of the guillotine procedure. Although it was not moved—and this illustrates the complexities in which we are involved on account of this peculiar procedure—some discussion took place in regard to its merits on the subject of cognate Amendments which were moved and discussed in respect of Clause 5. In my submission, the dis-

cussion which took place in regard to the substantial merits of this Amendment showed too limited, too restricted, and too narrow a Ministerial approach to the merits of this Amendment. That is why it is my duty to move it again this afternoon.
The purpose of the Amendment—as the right hon. Gentleman and Members of the Committee will be aware—is to provide for counter-notice to purchase in certain defined situations. The effect of the designation of land compulsory purchase, as prescribed by this Clause, is to put the owner or tenant in respect of whose land the designation is made under a suspended sentence of execution. The Minister has rather paradoxically argued on occasion that the designation of land as subject to compulsory acquisition is in some mysterious way positively beneficial to the owner. I do not know whether he will repeat that view to the Committee this afternoon, but if he does, I can tell him this; That it is a view which is certainly not widely shared by the owners and tenants of land to whom this procedure of designation is likely to be applied. I can only think that the Minister puts forward that point of view on the Johnsonian principle—if a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
There is not even this specialised advantage in the suspended sentence of execution which is imposed by the designation of land as subject to compulsory purchase within a 15-year period. That sentence is a suspended sentence and an indefinite sentence; and I think it right that the Committee should try to put itself into the mind of a person placed in such a position by having his land included in a designation order of that sort. I think that the normal reaction of such a person might well be to wish to "cut the painter," and to get rid of obligations which, after all, were not within his contemplation when he acquired the land of which he is now either owner or tenant as the case may be. I think that the onus must be on the Minister to say why, in such circumstances, the owner or tenant of the land, subject in this way to a designation to compulsory purchase, should not be allowed to do this. I think that is more evident since there is express Statutory provision in two other Statutes empowering the owner or tenant to do this very thing. I refer to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, of which the archi-


tect was my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), and the New Towns Act, 1946, which has a place on the Statute Book as a result primarily of the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman himself. We have had some sort of pre-view of the way in which the Minister addresses himself to the task of discharging this onus. We have heard something of his views on this matter in Standing Committee, although as I have said, the Motion was not formally moved in Standing Committee. The Minister's method of discharging the onus which lies upon him in this matter appears to be to pray in aid the provisions of Clause 17 of the Bill. In my submission, Clause 17 does not govern the situation for which we desire to legislate by this Amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The rights of a property-owner or tenant under Clause 17 are governed by the refusal of permission to develop land, or if not actual refusal, the grant of permission only under unduly onerous conditions. Those are the only circumstances in which the provisions of Clause 17 operate to the benefit of a landowner or tenant, and thus far I think I carry the Minister with me. But—and this is why we on this side of the Committee attach such importance to this Amendment—there will, of course, be a vast number of cases in which the principle of development is not affected at all. What about the owner of existing buildings? There is no question of development there, but he is placed under a suspended sentence of compulsory acquisition by the designation of his land under Clause 5. What about the small tradesman with the shop, or the man of modest means who has acquired his house and hopes to retain it, as a domestic haven from all the various trials and stresses to which one is subject in life today? Both these classes of persons, well meriting consideration, will not receive it under Clause 17, and indeed will not receive consideration at all unless the Committee accepts this Amendment.
The small tradesman to whom I have referred wants good will—that is the essence of his continuing in business. The man of modest means owning a house in the circumstances mentioned is chiefly concerned to retain a measure of undisturbed proprietorship. Both these people require security of tenure, but neither can have it under the threat of designation for compulsory purchase under Clause 5 of this

Bill. Our submission to the Committee is that people who are placed in the position of the small tradesman or the owner-occupier, whose cases I have quoted by way of typical illustration, should be entitled to say to the local planning authority, "You have willed this thing; you must accept the responsibility and the obligation to purchase; you, as the local planning authority, can let this property with some knowledge of what you have in mind, but I as property owner, subject to your undefined threat of compulsory acquisition, am not in that advantageous position; I cannot possibly know, and I cannot indicate to a prospective tenant or purchaser, what intentions the local planning authority may be expected to have in mind."
I have said that we are only really seeking to incorporate in this Bill the principles which already exist in two Acts of Parliament, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and the New Towns Act, of which the Minister himself is the architect. The Minister has sought to distinguish—I recognise his intellectual grasp of argument sufficiently to know that he realises that if he is to resist this Amendment he must try to distinguish—between the position we take up today and that which he conceded in the New Towns Act last year. He sought, in the Committee stage, to distinguish the principle of the New Towns Act from the principle which we put forward today. On the sixth day of our proceedings in Committee on 5th March, the right hon. Gentleman sought to distinguish the position under the New Towns Act by suggesting that designation in respect of the New Towns Act involved a degree of certainty which was not to be found, or would not be found, under the designation for compulsory purchase proposed in Clause 5 of this Bill. He used these words:
Under this provision there is no such certainty. The local authority must be of opinion, if my Amendment is accepted, that they will require the land, and they must have a bona fide opinion, and the Minister must be satisfied that they are of that opinion. But their programme may change. They may decide it is more urgent to develop some other area first, and in that case it may well turn out that the area will not be acquired within that period. There is not the same certainty as is the case under the New Towns Act.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 5th March, 1947; C. 244.]
That speech belongs, I suppose, to what in the history of town and country


planning will figure as the pre-Stevenage era, because it now appears that there may be the possibility of uncertainty even in the case of the designation of new towns, which weakens to that extent the distinction which the Minister seeks to draw between the two positions taken up. [Laughter.] The Minister laughs; I am surprised that that should be his reaction, because we have come to respect at any rate his motives, even if we cannot always respect his reasoning. I am sorry he should see something humorous in the subject matter of this Amendment, which I can assure him is a matter of great moment to a great many honourable and useful citizens of this country.

Mr. Silkin: Perhaps I had better not Jet the hon. Gentleman go any further in misinterpreting my laugh. It was because of the curious nature of his argument, that is all.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course, these things depend upon the point of view, and I am in the hands of a wider audience than the right hon. Gentleman, who has got, shall we say, a somewhat specialised and blinkered approach to a great many of these problems. I suggest to the Committee that the Minister's statement about the lack of certainty about designation under this Clause might well be construed as a ministerial invitation to the local planning authorities to designate far more land than they are likely to acquire by compulsory purchase. I believe that that is a very dangerous aspect of the possibilities inherent in this Clause. This tendency to over-insure in the matter of the designation of land for compulsory acquisition is a tendency which we have unhesitatingly condemned throughout the proceedings of this Committee; and it is one of the things which this Amendment would stop, because this Amendment would make it unprofitable for a local planning authority to designate too much land for compulsory purchase. The effect of this Amendment would be to impose certain sanctions on the practice of over-insurance. If this Amendment is carried, as I hope and expect it will be, the local or planning authority which designates land too widely and too arbitrarily as being subject to compulsory acquisition within the next 15 years will do so in the full knowledge that they are liable to have a counter-notice to purchase served upon them, in which

case they must assume the obligations of purchasing the land themselves.
There is one further point. I have dealt with the Minister's effort to distinguish the new Towns Act, but the Minister also seeks to differentiate the Act of 1944. The powers given under that Act are not quite identical with the powers we seek for this Bill, but that is a point which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend, who is so familiar with that Act, will elaborate a little later on in the consideration of this Clause. I hope I have made out to the Committee a case for incorporating this provision in the Clause. I believe that every reason of precedent—because it is a provision already figuring in Acts placed upon the Statute Book by two successive Governments every reason of justice to the individual; every consideration of good administration combine to counsel the incorporation of this Amendment in the Bill. In that confident conviction I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

Brigadier Rayner: I wish very briefly to support this Amendment. Once land has become designated, the black hand will be suspended over it, and an owner will not be able to sell, no one will want to move in, so no one will be able to move out. This threat will go on for 15 long years. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) referred to a suspended sentence of execution There is a most recent parallel which we might draw, that of the Nigerian ritual murders, where the criminals were trooped up half a dozen times to the scaffold before they were finally bumped off. The only point on which that parallel breaks down is that most land owners have committed no crime except that of being landowners. I suggest that this is an extremely fair Amendment in that it allows the landowner, if his land is designated, to get rid of it and go somewhere else, to emigrate or do anything he likes. If the Minister does not accept this Amendment, our landowners will be put in the same position as those landowners in ancient Russia who, being suspect, were ordered to remain on their estates during the Tsar's pleasure, and I am quite certain that this Government will not wish to emulate Tsarist Russia. I very strongly support the Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: This Amendment arises out of a misconception of the purpose of designation. Designation follows the


making of a plan. The local authority makes its plan, which has to be approved by the Minister, usually after a public inquiry. Now the plan itself will, generally speaking, provide for certain areas being developed by the local authority itself. It was thought to be a convenience to the landowner that he should know which parts of the plan it was proposed to carry out within the next ten years, and the method of informing the landowner is the method of designation. If it be true that the landowner is under this awful threat, it does not arise primarily out of designation, but out of the making of the plan. The plan will in most cases be carried out, whether the land is designated or not, but it is thought that it would be better that the landowner should know which parts of the plan were to be carried out at the earliest stage and which were not, and that is the real purpose of designation. It is also a convenience to the local authorities that they should clarify their own minds and come to a decision themselves as to the priorities in the carryout of the plan.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does the Minister mean to suggest, when he talks about the earliest stages, that the process of planned development as envisaged by this Government makes a period of 15 years the earliest stages?

4. p.m.

Mr. Silkin: The 15 years' period is being reduced to ten, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen from our Amendments, but I am not making debating points; I am merely saying that most plans involving redevelopment are long-term plans. Many of our cities require drastic redevelopment to make them good places to live in, and obviously that redevelopment cannot be carried out in a short time. Although the plan may set out what is the local authority's conception of the future of its area, obviously the redevelopment cannot be done all at once or within a short time. From the local authority's point of view, the purpose of designation is to indicate which parts of the redevelopment it is proposed to carry out at the earliest stage. That is the case for designation. In the vast majority of instances, there will be no inconvenience to the owner, who will be left to carry on his business, or to reside where he is residing, or to collect his rents if he is an owner and not an occupier. It need not affect him in the slightest degree.

Brigadier Rayner: Except that he will not be able to sell in the open market with that threat of designation hanging over him.

Mr. Silkin: I do not see why not. I. have already explained that if the threat of designation were not hanging over him, he would still be liable to compulsory purchase. I would like the Committee to understand this point, because it is important. Suppose the local authority made its plans, but the designation procedure were entirely dropped from the Bill; that would not prevent the local authority from implementing its plan in exactly the same way as if there had been designation. The only effect of designation is that it puts the owner on notice that his area is to be dealt with first, and it compels the local authority to make up its mind as to which area it is going to use first. It there were no designation, there would still be the threat; owners would still examine the plan and ask, "Will my land be dealt with before any other?" They would still have this so-called threat. But is it a threat? With the revised provisions for the payment of compensation—which I do not want to go into at any length—if the local authority is to pay market price in respect of the acquisition, what is the threat? The owner knows that when the time comes for acquisition he will be paid the ordinary market price. There is no reason why he should not sell on that basis or people should not buy. Therefore, this talk about threats is not really applicable. I agree quite freely that, as long as the local authority could have acquired at 1939 values, there was some basis for the fear, but if they are to acquire at present-day values, there is no justification for the fear.
I want now to refer to the false analogies that were drawn by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) as regards the New Towns Act and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. I call them false analogies for the reasons I gave in Committee. The hon. Gentleman quoted a part of my speech, but there was another part which drove my point still further home. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to rely on those Measures, why did he not so frame his Amendment that the notice could be given only after. a number of years? The notice requiring the local authority to buy, under this


Amendment, can be given at any time after designation, whereas in the other two Acts the notice can be given only, in the one case, after seven years and, in the other, after five years, but even then the Minister can revoke the notice unless the land has no beneficial use. Even though the notice is given requiring the local authority to purchase, it need not be operated on if the land can still continue to be used. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to rely upon analogies, he should have framed the Amendment so as to make them fit exactly those two Measures.
I rely upon the fact that the cases are not analogous, and that in the New Towns Act and the Town and Country Planning Act the purpose of designation is ultimately to acquire the land—there is no doubt about it—whereas, in the case of designation under Clause 5 of this Bill, the local authority merely has to be satisfied that the land is likely to be purchased within 10 years. Finally, there is no danger that local authorities will over-designate, because the designation as well as the plan is subject to approval by the Minister after a public inquiry. The last word does not rest with the local authority but with the Minister, who is bound to act judicially and in the light of the evidence that he gets at the local public inquiry. If it be true that the local authority has over-estimated the amount of land it is likely to want to purchase in 10 years, that will soon be corrected when the order is made.

Mr. Walker-Smith: May I explain the point arising out of the Town and Country Planning Act to which both the Minister and I have referred? The Section in question is, of course, Section 2 (4), and the Minister's argument on that is that if I pray in aid the analogy of that Section, I ought in the Amendment to reproduce the proviso relating to the five-year expiration. Of course, the two things are not entirely analogous, because our Amendment would enable the owner in such circumstances to serve a counter notice to purchase, but that is not the effect of Section 2 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, of which the operative words are that his interest shall be treated as excepted from the operation of any order under that Section; in other words, the remedy of Section 2 (4) of the New Towns Act goes further in the

interest of the owner of the land than our Amendment. It is because the remedy goes further and is more radical in that case that no doubt the time limit was imposed. The lesser remedy involved in the counter notice to purchase embodied in our Amendment does not, therefore, require a five-year period of waiting such as was prescribed in the 1944 Act.

Mr. Silkin: I shall not try to follow the hon. Member in that somewhat involved argument. All that I claim is that the two cases are not analogous, and the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he agrees with me. Therefore, it is no use praying in aid those other Measures. For these reasons, I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am always filled with admiration at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning, with a multitude of words, skates on somewhat thin ice. The reasons he has put forward for resisting the Amendment will not stand close examination. He has sought to draw a subtle distinction between the purpose of designation under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and the New Towns Act, 1946, and the designation under this Bill. He says that, under the first two Measures, the purpose was to acquire the land; here, he says that under Clause 5 it is only designation to show that the land is likely to be acquired. All I can say is that I do not think people who are informed that their land is designated as likely to be compulsorily acquired will gain any confidence from the subtle distinction drawn by the Minister.
What is the point of designation under this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said, accurately, that the fact that a person's land is not included within the area designated as liable to compulsory purchase gives no security of tenure. As I understand the Bill, the farmer outside the circle marked on the plan is just as likely to lose his land as the individual whose land is inside the circle. Therefore, from the point of view of giving security of tenure and of letting people know how they stand, designation under this Bill does not really serve much in the way of a useful purpose. I quite agree that the man who is to lose his property, his business, his livelihood, or his land, is entitled to have some notice of what


is to be done, but when the Minister goes beyond that and gives long advance notice, notice which was to be 15 years in duration, I suggest that that sort of notice is doing no more and no less than cast a blight over the land within the circle.
What is the purpose of these plans? It is to plan for the best use of the country. That does not mean sterilising vast areas for long periods as being liable to compulsory purchase. My hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, referred specifically to houses and buildings. I would like to refer to agricultural land, because I am sure the Minister will agree that the great majority of the land which will be affected by designation will be land which is not built upon and which is agricultural in character, and although it may be that if the farmer holds on to the very end of the time when his property is seized from him he will' get, after much negotiation, compensation according to the market values at that time, it still seems to me that the effect of designation of his farm over such a long period might do him very grave injury. He might find that directions were served upon him by the Ministry of Agriculture to do certain things even though there were only five years to go before his land would be taken from him and the period expire. I suggest to the Minister that a farmer, in such a position, might well say: "I would like to get out of this, I would like to free myself of this liability. I want to improve my farm, and I want my son to carry on the farm after me. It is obvious that as I am within the area designated, I cannot do that here." It might not be easy for that farmer to find someone willing to come into the circle designated as liable to compulsory purchase.
Therefore, I suggest that, just as in the New Towns Act, there is also a case here for saying that, after a certain time has elapsed, the farmer should be entitled and should have the right to say to the planners, "You have planned my land, you have said you were going to take it over for redevelopment; it is only fair that you should relieve me and allow me to go and settle elsewhere so that I can get a farm, improve it, develop it, where my son can follow on after me." I ask the Minister to think over this matter again. I remember pressing him on this very point in the Debates on the New Towns Bill, and he seemed

to be far more sympathetic to the point at issue then than he is now. The points are the same. Although on the Minister's interpretation designation may not be so much of a threat as it is under the previous Acts, I still believe that in the minds of the public it will be considered so much a threat, just as dangerous to the individual, and just as blighting in its effect. I ask him to consider whether it is not right to say that if, within the period in the Amendment, the land has not been acquired, the owner should, if he wishes, have an opportunity of getting out before the sword falls upon his head.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Medland: I hope that the Minister will not listen to the siren voice of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). This point was discussed at considerable length upstairs, though on another Amendment. Although it has been very cleverly switched round by hon. Gentlemen, this point was the subject of discussion for at least an hour and a half or two hours in Committee. I ask my right hon. Friend to stand fast on this point, because of the effect which this Amendment would have upon cities which have to develop areas of land as a whole. This Clause limits the designation to 15 years. In those 15 years, the planning authority will decide what it is to do with this, that or the other piece of land inside the area as a whole. If the proposal, which we are now discussing, to give the owner of the land the right to demand that it be purchased from him at current prices—not at 1939 value—within three months, were put into effect, we should cast away all hope of replanning any of the devastated cities in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the planning authority has to take into consideration how it is to rebuild and redevelop its area from year to year, and because it has to meet its financial responsibilities. It would be impossible to do that with this threat hanging over it. On those grounds, I hope that there will be no response on the part of the Minister to the persuasive voice of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Just imagine what that threat would mean in an area where something like 600 or 700 acres of land had to be acquired in one city alone. The city authority makes its plan. Having done so and having designated the use to


which that land is to be put, imagine the city having to take over 600 or 700 acres within six months, or three months, in accordance with the terms of this Amendment. It is bad enough having to do it in 15 years. On those grounds, I ask the Minister to stand fast.

Mr. Digby: I had not the advantage of hearing the arguments put forward in Committee, but I should like to put forward my views on this matter now. I do not propose to deal with the city aspect of this matter, with which I am not so familiar. I desire to say a word or two on this subject in relation to agricultural land. It may seem a strange thing to the Minister of Town and Country Planning, but farmers and estate owners require to plan as much as he and other people do. In his remarks, which greatly disappointed me, he said that it was a convenience to a landowner to know that his land was to be taken within ten years. It may be more convenient to know that, than to have no idea at all, but it is extremely inconvenient to have no idea at what time within those 10 years that land will be taken. That puts a farmer, or an occupier, and the estate owner in an extremely difficult position.
If one knows that at some time in the next 10 years, a farm is to be cut in half by a huge road being driven through it, and a large number of buildings erected on it, what is one to do when the roof of the cowshed falls in? Is one to have it repaired or not? What about the position of the tenant of that farm, who knows that sometime within that 10 years he is to lose his farm, and that he will have to look for another one? Farms are not easy to come by these days, and if he has any sense he will start looking for another

Division No. 200]
AYES.
[4.53 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Amory, D. Heathoote
Crowder, Capt. John E '
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Cuthbert, W. N.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Baldwin, A. E.
Digby, S. W.
Linstead, H. N.


Baxter, A. B
Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Low, Brig. A. R. W


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Erroll, F. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Birch, Nigel
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Mackeson, Brig. H. R


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gammans, L. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grimston, R. V.
MacLeod, J.


Butcher, H. W.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Challen, C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Channon, H.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Manningham-Buller, R. E


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Howard, Hon. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Keeling, E. H
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

farm at once, and will get out. Such a position creates a great degree of uncertainty, and I ask the Minister to look at this question again. It is true that it may be of some convenience to farmers and others to have some indication, but I think that they should have some safeguard. If they are to be put in an impossible position, in which they really cannot carry on, and are quite unable to plan for the future, they should have some remedy, so that they can hand over the land to others, who can take it over and use it forthwith.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Earlier I said a word about the contention of the Minister in seeking to distinguish the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the 1944 Act from those in this Amendment. I now wish to address myself to his observations about the New Towns Act. He sought to distinguish the procedure in the New Towns Act by saying that the owner could only serve a counter notice to purchase if he could show that the land was no longer capable of beneficial use.

Mr. Silkin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: That was our understanding on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Silkin: I made that point on the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.

Mr. Walker-Smith: In that case our point is doubly reinforced, because the Minister has not succeeded in distinguishing at all the principle he put in the New Towns Act from the principle that we are asking the Committee to put in this Measure.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 226.

Mellor, Sir J.
Roberts, Maj P. G. (Ecclesall)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Ropner, Col. L.
Studholme, H. G.


Morrison, Rt Hon. W. S. (C'ne'ster)
Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Walker-Smith, D.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smithers, Sir W
Ward, Hon. G. R


Pickthorn, K.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Prescott, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.



Rayner, Brig. R.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES




Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.




NOES.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
George,, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Noel-Buxton, Ladv


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Goodrich, H. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Palmer, A. M. F


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Parker, J.


Attewell, H. C.
Grenfell, D. R.
Parkin, B. T.


Austin, H. Lewis
Grey, C. F.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Ayles, W. H.
Guy, W. H.
Peart, Capt. T. F


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Piratin, P.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hale, Leslie
Popplewell, E.


Barstow, P. G
Hall, W. G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Barton, C.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Battley, J. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Price, M. Philips


Bechervaise, A. E.
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W. T.


Berry, H.
Hewitson, Captain M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Beswick, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Ranger, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Holman, P.
Rankin, J


Blackburn, A. R
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Blyton, W. R.
House, G
Reeves, J.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W,)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Robens, A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Roberts, Emrys (Merieneth)


Bramall, E. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney. C.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Irving, W. J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Jay, D. P. T.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rogers, C. H. R


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Bruce, Major D. W. T
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sharp, Granville


Buchanan, G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Byers, Frank
Keenan, W.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Callaghan, James
Kendall, W. D
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J.


Chamberlain, R. A
King, E. M
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Kinley, J.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V
Skinnard, F. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lavers, S.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Levy, B. W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Collindridge, F
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Collins, V. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Solley, L. J.


Colman, Miss G. M
Lyne, A. W.
Sorensen, R. W


Comyns, Dr. L.
McAdam, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
McAllister, G.
Stamford, W


Cove, W. G.
McEntee, V. La T
Stephen, C.


Crawley, A
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Daggar, G
Mack, J. D.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daines, P
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. B.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McLeavy, F.
Stubbs, A. E


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sylvester, G. O


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Symonds, A. L.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Deer, G.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Diamond, J.
Medland, H. M
Thurtle, Ernest


Dodds, N. N.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Tiffany, S


Driberg, T. E. N
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R
Titterington, M. F.


Dumpleton, C. W
Mitchison, G. R
Tolley, L.


Dye, S.
Monslow, W.
Turner-Samuels, M


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Montague, F
Vernon, Maj. W F


Edelman, M.
Moody, A S.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Walkden, E.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Moyle, A.
Warbey, W N


Farthing, W. J.
Nally, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Field, Captain W. J.
Naylor, T. E
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Foot, M. M
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford. N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wigg, Col. G. E.

Wilkes, L.
Wilson, J. H.



Wilkins, W. A.
Wise, Major F. J
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Woods, G. S.
Mr. Joseph Henderson


Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Wyatt, W.
Mr. Pearson.


Williams, RI Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 20.—(Supplementary provisions as to revocation and modification.)

5.0 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 21, line 42, at the end, to insert:
and any consequential loss or damage sustained by him by reason of the revocation or modification of the permission.

The Chairman: I think it might be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 21, line 42, at the end, to insert:
together with interest thereon, at such rate as may be prescribed.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I intended to propose that course for your approval, Major Milner. This Clause deals with compensation payable to an owner of property on the revocation of permission to develop. It provides that compensation shall be paid equal either to expenditure incurred by the owner in carrying out work, or to the expenditure in connection with his entering into a contract for work. The two Amendments seek to carry the amount of compensation a little further than is provided at present. In regard to the first Amendment, the Clause contemplates only a contract made by an owner for work to be done. It only permits compensation for such work though it may well be that the owner of property has entered into other contracts. For example, by virtue of having obtained permission to develop one piece of land, he may have entered into a much larger and more expensive contract in connection with another piece of property in the neighbourhood, the two contracts hinging together and one being dependent on the other. If compensation is only to be payable in respect of the contract for work done on the property which is to be abandoned, then clearly the owner of that property may suffer grave loss in respect of the other contract for which he would not be entitled to any compensation at all. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman intends that result. I hope he will say either that I am wrong in the view

that I take of this Clause, or that he will consider making a suitable Amendment.
The other Amendment seeks to add interest to the amount of compensation which is payable. At present the amount payable is to be precisely equal to the expenditure incurred. I take it that that means the net expenditure incurred, and that it would have no regard at all to the time when such an expenditure was incurred, so as to permit of interest being added. It may be there are many people who have started to develop their property under a permission, obtained possibly before the beginning of the recent war. There may be people who, in order to carry out that development, have borrowed money from the bank and have had to pay interest to the bank for a number of years. This Clause would enable such a person to obtain compensation for the capital cost if he had to abandon the work. That is to say he would be able to obtain compensation in respect of the actual sum of money which he had borrowed from the bank, but no account would be taken of any interest which he had paid. Therefore, he would be seriously out of pocket by reason of the abandonment of his work on the revocation of permission. I do not believe that it can be the intention of the Government to do that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make some suitable alteration.

Mr. Silkin: We are discussing two Amendments which, in many ways, are quite dissimilar although they both have, for their object, an increase in the amount of compensation payable to an owner. In regard to the first, I am in sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment. I think it goes too far. I think that to give carte blanche for
any consequential loss or damage sustained by him.
would be going very far indeed and would open the door to the widest possible interpretation. I am in agreement with the principle that there should be compensation in respect of loss directly incurred, directly flowing from the revocation, and I am prepared to give an undertaking that at a later stage an Amendment will be introduced in some such form as that,


broadly carrying out the principle of the first Amendment but not accepting the language. I am afraid that I can give no assurance whatever in regard to the second Amendment. To provide for the payment of interest on compensation would be to introduce a novel but very dangerous principle. Compensation on interest has never been provided in any Act of Parliament. It was not provided in the 1943 Act, or the 1932 Act, and I do not think that it should be provided here. If, however, the compensation is provided in respect of loss incurred, then I think it will cover the point which has been made because, in fact, the loss will be based upon present-day values.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that where consequential loss was not incurred by reason of interest having had to be paid in the past, he is prepared to accept that?

Mr. Silkin: indicated dissent.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think there are two classes of interest on which compensation might be paid. We might compensate for interest which had been paid in the past by the person who had carried out the development, by reason of his having had to borrow in order to carry out the development; or there is interest which he might claim after the revocation of the permission. I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the first class of interest should be covered and that the second class should not.

Mr. Silkin: No. What I was trying to say was that no interest can be provided at all. We cannot provide for interest as such. It may well turn out that any compensation in respect of loss directly incurred by the revocation of permission would be sufficient to meet any interest. The answer is that I am prepared to give an undertaking in regard to the first Amendment that, at a later stage, an Amendment will be introduced providing for loss sustained by an owner by reason of revocation, but not in the wide terms of this Amendment. I am not able to accept the second Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: We are always grateful for small mercies and, therefore, I do not wish to appear ungrateful for the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the wider question of additional compensation. It was

for the convenience of the Committee that the two Amendments were taken together, though the course followed by the discussion shows that the word "interest" has led to a certain amount of confusion which I will try to clear up. I was greatly impressed by the instance which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) put before the Minister as a case of consequential damage which ought to be covered. I remember a case of a young man, a builder, who had bought a piece of building land before the war. The land probably fell into the category to be defined as "near ripe" land. The man intended to carry out building operations immediately, but the war intervened. He joined up and so he was prevented from carrying out the operation for which he had purchased the land. He had, perfectly properly, purchased it with a loan from the bank which, on a reasonable prospect of development, he was quite easily able to repay. But throughout the war, while serving in the Forces, he had to maintain the interest on this bank charge or lose what he had already invested. He had planning permission in respect of the land and, therefore, what he had done was in the public interest as measured by the judgment of the competent planning authority.
In such a case, should there be a revocation of the planning permission, that man is not merely prevented from going on with his building operations and recouping himself in respect of the finance which he expended, but he is in the position of having paid out a substantial sum of interest to the bank. I ask that in a case like that, when a planning permission is revoked, or conditions are imposed upon it which alter its character, these elements of consequential loss shall be taken into consideration. If they are not, great injustice will result. That is a case where interest is really a factor in consequential damage. The fact that that example is one of interest, does not alter the validity of the first proposition.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, he says that he does not wish to let himself in for paying interest on compensation which is adjudicated to be correct. The merit of paying interest is to encourage a prompt settlement of claims. I am sure that on reconsideration, the right hon. Gentleman will see that if he makes a moderate allowance


for interest on payments of compensation it will encourage the prompt settlement of these claims, thus facilitating in his activities the man who is compensated.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 24.—(Provisions supplementary to s. 23.)

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 27, line 43, to leave out from "that," to the end of line 3, in page 28, and to insert:
any, person has suffered damage in consequence of the order by the depreciation of any interest in the land to which he is entitled or by being disturbed in his enjoyment of the land, that authority shall pay to that person compensation in respect of that damage; and any compensation payable under this Subsection in respect of the depreciation in the value of an interest in the land shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
This Amendment is put down as a result of an undertaking which I gave in Committee. As the Clause stood, if a person suffered trade disturbance without actually suffering loss of land value, he was not able to get compensation in respect of trade disturbance. This Amendment will enable such a person to get compensation in respect of trade disturbance without necessarily suffering loss of land value.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the right hon. Gentleman said, this arose out of our proceedings in Committee. I. agree with him that the present drafting which he has suggested carries out the undertaking he gave, and I am grateful for his consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 26.—(Orders for preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 32, line 29, at the end, to add:
(7) The powers conferred on a local planning authority by this section to make a building preservation order may be exercised also by the council of the county district

in which the building to which the order relates is situated; and references in this Act to local planning authorities shall, in relation to the said powers, be construed as including references to the council of a county district.
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable district councils to make building preservation orders in addition to the new planning authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 42.—(Incorporation of certain provisions of Act of 1944.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 46, line 17, to leave out Subsection (3).
This Amendment and the succeeding Amendment—to leave out Subsection (6)—arise in consequence of the proposed abolition of the 1939 standard. On the assumption that later Amendments will be carried abolishing that standard, these Subsections become both unnecessary and inapplicable.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am glad to see the disappearance of Subsection (3) because it is indeed seldom, even in Acts of Parliament, that one meets words of such utterly and completely baffling obscurity. It is worth while reading to the Committee the words with which hon. Members are so reluctantly parting:
So much of Subsection (2) of Section twenty-four of the Act of 1944 as provides for the application of Section fifty-seven of that Act in relation to compensation for loss sustained by the extinction of any right or the vesting of any apparatus under the said Section twenty-four shall not apply arid shall be deemed never to have applied to compensation for loss so sustained otherwise than by the diminution in value of an interest in land.
I hope the Committee understands what that means, but I have never been able to understand it, and for that reason I am very glad to see the last of words which do not contribute to the clarity of our legislation.

Mr. Silkin: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's pleasure at parting with this Subsection because it was put in to correct an error in his own Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 46, line 42, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Silkin.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 47.—(Assumptions to be made in assessing compensation on compulsory acquisition.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Silkin: The omission of this Clause and of the two succeeding Clauses is necessary in order to insert new Clauses dealing with the proposed new basis of compensation for compulsory purchase.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I do not rise to urge that Clause 47 should stand part of the Bill. I shall be glad to see this obnoxious Clause pass from this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman indicated in Committee, in response to representations on the inequity of 1939 prices, that he proposed to introduce at a later stage other provisions modifying and altering them. He was not then in a position to indicate the nature of them, but he has since put them on the Order Paper. When we come to consider what it is proposed to substitute, we may have something to say about it, but both sides of the Committee are agreed about making the necessary aperture or gap, subsequently to be filled up by what the Minister suggests at a later stage.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 48.—(Amendment of s. 57 and Seventh Schedule to Act of 1944.)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 49.—(Amendments of Eighth Schedule to Act of 1944.)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 50.—(Application of 9 and 10 Geo. 5. C. 57 to purchases by statutory undertakers.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 56, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(2) The rate of interest for any period after the passing of this Act on compensation which fell or falls, in default of agreement, to be ascertained in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 (whether as originally enacted or as amended by any subsequent enactment including this Act), in respect of land compulsorily purchased on which entry has been made before the payment of the compensation shall, in lieu of being the rate of five per cent. specified under Section eighty-five of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845. be such other rate as may from time to time be

prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury under this Act.
(3) Any regulations made by the Treasury under Section sixty-two of the Act of 1944 which are in force at the date of the passing of this Act shall continue in force and have effect as ii they had been made under this Act and shall accordingly apply to any compensation which falls, in default of agreement, to be ascertained in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by this Act.
This is very largely a drafting Amendment. It involves a rearrangement of Section 62 of the 1944 Act, which is repealed by this Bill. The relevant portions of Section 62 are reinstated in Clause 50.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This Clause deals in the main with acquisitions by statutory undertakers. I gather that the Minister's object in moving this Amendment is to make certain that the specification of rates of interest may be varied from time to time instead of being held down to the 5 per cent. instituted in the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845. At the same time, I should like to make this observation on what is proposed. The Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, instituted 5 per cent. and that was intended as a spur to those who were due to pay compensation to be speedy and prompt in paying, otherwise there was this bill of interest running against them. Though I do not object to what the Minister is proposing, there is a point of substance involved, because it is entirely in the public interest that these transactions shall be liquidated as rapidly as possible so that the person who is dispossessed of a piece of property gets his working capital returned as quickly as possible and there is no lag in starting work of production or whatever it may be. I hope that when the Government use the power the Minister now seeks, they will bear that aspect of the matter in mind and make sure that the rate of interest proposed is such as to be a substantial incentive to prompt settlement.

Mr. Silkin: It is only right to point out that it was the right hon. Gentleman who reduced the rate of interest from 5 to 4 per cent. in Section 62 of the 1944 Act and also provided machinery for modifying the rate of interest from time to time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is because of that, that I have made those observations.


Although it was right to substitute 4 per cent. for 5 per cent. in 1944, I should not like the Government to go to the other extreme, and imagine that there is no value in the exaction of interest of a substantial character for deferred payments. For that reason I ask the Government to keep that aspect of the matter in mind in administration.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 51.—(Payments for depreciation of land values.)

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, in page 57, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(d) for including in claims made under this part of this Act the costs reasonably incurred by the claimant in relation to the preparation and making of such claims, provided that no payment shall be made in respect of costs in a case in which it is ultimately decided that the development rights are of no value.
I think I can explain this Amendment in a very few words. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the preparation of claims under this Clause is a highly technical matter and that very few property owners will be able to submit their claims without obtaining some technical assistance. The Amendment proposes to allow the cost of the preparation of such claims to be included. There is an additional reason for this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is very unlikely that more than a very small part of those claims will be paid, in the vast majority of cases, and therefore it is only equitable that people who are suffering under this Bill should be allowed to charge the cost of the preparation of the claim. But for the Bill, they would be left in undisturbed possession of their property. It seems just as reasonable to make an allowance or as unreasonable not to make an allowance as it would be to make a conscripted man pay for his own medical examination. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to grant this concession.

Mr. Silkin: Whatever may be the intention of this Amendment, I doubt whether it really achieves the purpose the hon. Gentleman has in mind. He is asking that the payment of costs should be made five years after this claim and should be paid in stock. I am sure he does not

intend that. I realise that the Amendment merely asks that the costs should follow the event and that if it was ultimately decided that the development rights were of no value, there should be no compensation. That might only be decided after a very long time. Some cases will go to arbitration, and in respect of those the arbitrator can award costs. That is in his absolute discretion. In so far as he does, they will be paid by the Central Land Board out of their ordinary funds. That will be in a limited number of cases. This Amendment is intended to cover the general case where people put in claims and have to get professional assistance. I should be the last person in the world to say that they ought not to have professional assistance. Probably most people, owing to the complexity of the Bill, will need such assistance.
5.30 p.m.
The question is, What is the best way of dealing with the costs? Is it better that they should come out of the £300 million which would mean a general reduction in the amount available to payments; or is it better that people should pay their own costs? I suggest that this is a matter which can be dealt with by the regulations; for obviously the regulations will have to take the question of costs into consideration. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the question of professional costs will be considered seriously. I can give him a further assurance, that the regulations can deal with this question. Of course, I cannot give him an assurance as to what the regulations will contain, but I can promise him that consideration will be given to this question of costs and as to the proper method of dealing with them. If he chooses in his wisdom to withdraw this Amendment, the question will in no way be prejudiced.

Mr. Gammans: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he really accepts the principle that there is a just claim for costs being asked for in these circumstances?

Mr. Silkin: No, I accept the principle that there is good reason for people seeking professional assistance—

Mr. Gammans: For which they have to pay.

Mr. Silkin: The question is whether it should be paid for out of the £300 million,


or whether they should pay for it themselves. I would like to give it further consideration and, moreover, it will be considered in relation to the regulations which will be made by the Treasury. I am suggesting that the question of costs should stand over pending consideration as to what goes into the regulations.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am alarmed that the Minister should say that the question is whether the costs should come out of the £300 million or whether the individual should pay for them out of his own pocket. I suggest that the issue is not whether they should come from one source or another, but whether the Government ought to meet them. I should have said without hesitation that if a man is the owner of a piece of property which the State, doubtless for good reasons, desires to acquire, and the individual is put to various costs in the shape of surveyors' fees, legal fees and what not, solely as a result of the decision taken, not by himself but by the acquiring authority, there ought to be no question whatever but that those costs should be met by the acquiring authority. There is abundant and ample precedent for this. In the Defence (Compensation) Act, 1939—a Coalition Measure—under which the State took power to acquire all sorts of things in the form of land, buildings and chattels, provision was made in that Act under which any costs to which the person whose property was taken was subjected, either by way of legal fees or surveying costs, was entitled to be refunded without any question.

Mr. Silkin: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to get at the truth about this Amendment, which is an Amendment to the suggestion that there should be a further provision in the regulations to be made by the Treasury. These are regulations only for the purpose of laying down how the £300 million should be distributed. There is no question of requiring the State to pay—that is not in the Amendment at all; it is merely as to how the £300 million should be distributed so that in any case the claimant's claim will either come out of the £300 million—and therefore the claimant will get, proportionately less—

Mr. Brown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Silkin: That is what the Amendment is—or he will pay directly out of

his own pocket and get a bigger share in the £300 million.

Mr. Brown: With great respect, this Bill is not yet through. The £300 million is not through. The giving of power to the Treasury to spend £300 million is not through. We may yet reject this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have not made up my mind on this issue, and I am suggesting that it is perfectly within the competence of the House of Commons, if it so decides, to provide that there should be expenditure from public funds, or from some other fund quite apart from the £300 million, to meet a claim for expenses incurred by virtue of a decision by the acquiring authority.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Not by this Amendment.

Mr. Brown: Maybe not. I am not asking for the Attorney-General's opinion. If I require the assistance of the Attorney-General in this matter I shall be the first to seek it, and I hope that I shall get completely unprejudiced advice on the matter. I put it to the Minister with great respect that he ought to agree in principle that the individual should not be damnified in one way or another. He ought neither to pay these costs out of his own pocket nor to be subjected to a limitation of what he can claim in respect of development values out of the £300 million. I would suggest to the Minister, as a clear way of meeting this, that he should agree at once in principle to meet the point, whether he accepts the Amendment or not, and should undertake to bring before us at a later stage proposals for giving effect to the principle that the individual ought to be able to recover his costs.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is not clear to me. He professes sympathy with the object of the Amendment, that a person should have proper legal advice, or whatever advice is necessary to deal with this complicated Measure, and that his costs should somehow be met, but objects to this Amendment on the ground that, if it is put into the Statute, the sum will come out of the £300 million. But at the same time he contemplates it being put into the regulations. Does that mean, if it is put into the regulation, that it comes out of some other sum, or does it still come out of the £300 million? If it still


comes out of the £300 million, I cannot see any objection to it being put into the Statute, because it still comes out of the global sum whether it is in the Statute or the regulations.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I rise to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). Despite the intervention of the Attorney-General, I consider that the argument put forward by the hon. Member has a direct bearing on this Amendment, particularly having regard to what the Minister has said. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting to those responsible for putting this Amendment on the Paper, that it might be prudent, having regard to certain considerations which he put forward, to withdraw the Amendment. The argument which he put forward was at first sight reasonable. He said that these costs were perfectly proper costs to incur, but that it might be argued reasonably that they ought not to come out of the global sum of compensation payable to other persons who might be entitled to compensation under this Bill. So far I follow the right hon. Gentleman. I see that is an objection to the Amendment. It was at the stage immediately following that that I became confused as to what the right hon. Gentleman was asking us to accept as an alternative. I can see the argument that there is a valid objection to paying costs out of a global sum of compensation, because that would reduce the amount of compensation payable to other owners who might not have incurred like costs and whose case might be of a similar kind or who might have foregone the advantage of professional assistance.
That is sound, but then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the alternative is that owners should pay their own costs. That is what I cannot see—if I may use an ungrammatical phrase—the justice of. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman advancing to the Committee an argument which says, "We do not want people to incur a lot of unnecessary professional costs. We do not want them to secure the very best legal assistance, or the most expensive and most fashionable silk of the moment, whoever it may be, to advise them." That may be a reasonable

argument, but the right hon. Gentleman is not putting that forward. He is frankly conceding what I think he will have to concede, that the matters in this Bill are of so intensely complex and technical a character that nobody, probably even those who might be themselves professionally qualified, would want to advise themselves about it. They would want to seek outside advice.
I concede at once that there are arguments in favour of the acquisition or extinction of proprietary rights in the interests of the public, but if that is done, and if the result of that is to involve persons in such a complex series of regulations and enactments that they are driven thereby to seek professional advice to guide them through the labyrinths that Parliament has itself created, then it does not seem to be arguable that those costs ought to be borne by the people who incur them. They ought to be paid by those who put them in that position. If there is a reason of public policy, as there may well be, for extinguishing private rights, then the public ought to pay for the extinction a proper sum, and that proper sum ought to include professional costs, because, if it is wrong—as hon. Gentlemen opposite never tire of reminding us—for the individual to exploit the public for the sake of profit, it must be equally wrong for the public to exploit the individual. Surely it must be obvious that the alternative which the Minister is trying to put before us is Hobson's choice. Then why cannot he be a little more forthcoming and do what I think, apart from party differences, all of us in this Committee would think to be the honourable thing if the matter were put to us—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Order.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, Mr. Beaumont, if I am misbehaving myself—

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I was trying to quieten hon. Members at the back of the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: I am glad you think I was not responsible, Mr. Beaumont. I was drawing my speech peacefully to a close. It seems to me an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is taking an objective and just view of these things. I do not believe there is a Member of this Committee, who, left to himself


and apart from party pre-conceptions on one side or the other, would say that these costs were not reasonably incurred. Will not the right hon. Gentleman make, as he often does make, an objective and a just approach to this matter?

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Surely the issue is not whether costs are reasonably incurred or not, but whether they should come out of the £300 million. It has been decided—not without some reluctance on the part of some hon. Members who supported this Bill on Second Reading—that the sum of £300 million be paid out as compensation, but the amount payable is limited to that figure. The issue before the Committee on this Amendment is whether individual claimants should be able to add to the amount of their claim a sum in respect of professional costs. If they are allowed to do so the global amount available for distribution will be diminished. I should have thought that, in view of the fact that there will be a large number of claims, some more serious than others, and that some will require more professional assistance than others, considerable difficulty will arise if professional costs are included, and that both in the interests of the State and of the claimants themselves considered collectively, it would be best if individual claimants were not allowed to add professional costs to their claims. I hope therefore that the Minister will resist the Amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sure the Committee as a whole are of the opinion that as this Measure imposes on the citizen the cost of obtaining this sort of professional advice, some provision should be made to defray the cost being put upon him. As the Minister points out, the costs themselves will be extracted from the already exiguous £300 million, and will have the effect of diminishing that inadequate sum for compensation. The Bill says in Subsection (4), when speaking about the scheme the Treasury is to make, that the scheme
may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the Treasury to be necessary or expedient, including provision—
Then there are three cases set forth, and we seek to add this fourth. The Minister said that he thought he could give further consideration to the question of costs. I say there should be some provision,

"incidental and consequential" to this scheme. for defraying costs properly incurred by the applicant, and I do not think it should come out of the global sum. Some provision should be made in the expenses of the Central Land Board so that justice is done. If in all cases the costs were in direct proportion to the size of the actual claim for loss of development rights, the matter might, to some extent, be left to look after itself. But that will not always be the case. There will be cases where a relatively small amount is claimed, small in relation to others, but big from the point of view of the claimant, where the particulars will be so complicated as to involve the claimant in higher costs than a simpler though larger claim would necessarily incur. I think there are ample grounds for the Minister's promise of consideration of how this shall be met I am prepared on that assurance to allow the matter to go just now, but we shall expect him to do something about it in the future.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 59.—(General provisions as to stock.)

Amendment made: In page 63, line 34, leave out "management," and insert "repayment."—[Mr. Silkin.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 62.—(Levy of development charge in respect of certain development.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 66, line 15, to leave out from "where," to the end of line 23, and to insert:
planning permission is granted under Part II of this Act for the carrying out of operations of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, or for the institution of any use so specified, then if—

(a) compensation has been paid under section eighteen of this Act in consequence of a previous refusal of permission fix those operations or that use or of the grant of such permission subject to conditions, or in consequence of the revocation or modification of permission so granted; or
(b) compensation has been paid under section twenty-four of this Act in consequence of am order requiring the removal of any building or the discontinuance of any use of land, and the planning permission authorises the rebuilding of that building or the resumption of that use."


The purpose of this Amendment is that when compensation has been paid by the local authority in respect of a refusal to permit development, and subsequently that development is permitted, the person carrying out the development shall become liable to pay development charge.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am desirous of a little further explanation of this from the Minister. In the draft of the Bill as it left the Committee, Subsection (3) of Clause 62 made provision whereby if compensation had been paid in the circumstances described by the Minister there would be a development charge. As far as I can understand from a cursory examination, this is a redraft of the provisions previously contained in Subsection (3). The new draft has the merit of additional clarity, but I would like an assurance from the Minister that nothing of principle is changed, and that it is a drafting Amendment. If it is not, I hope he will tell us what is the change of principle.

Mr. Silkin: I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that this is not a question of principle; it is very largely a matter of drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 66, line 25, at the end, to insert:
and where the amount of the development charge to be paid in respect of those operations or that use has been determined by the Central Land Board in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, the Board may pay to any local authority by whom any such compensation as aforesaid has been paid a contribution towards that compensation not exceeding the said amount.
This Amendment is designed to carry out an undertaking I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Irving). It provides that where the Central Land Board gets the benefit of compensation which has been paid by a local authority on refusal of permission to develop and permission is subsequently granted, if the Central Land Board levies a development charge it shall have the power to refund to the local authority a part or the whole of the development charge it receives.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish to put a question arising from the right hon. Gentleman's last sentence about repayment in whole or in part. I rather antici-

pated from his earlier remarks that the development charge levied would not exceed the amount of compensation paid by the local authority. If that be the case, of course, there would be no question of more than a payment from the Central Land Board to the local authority and no balance would remain for the Central Land Board. That should be the case, and the development charge should not exceed the amount of compensation.

Mr. Silkin: It need not be so. This Amendment is not designed to collect the amount of the development charge. That has already been settled. This merely provides that the Central Land Board may in certain circumstances make a payment to the local authority. In answer to the specific question, it would, of course, depend very much on when the original compensation is paid. If it were paid a considerable time back, or if a long period separated the payment of Compensation and the issue of the development charge, the circumstances might be very different, and the two need not necessarily have any relationship.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 66, line 42, at the end, to add:
(6) Any sums required by the Central Land Board for the making of contributions under this section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
This Amendment secures that any contribution made by the Board to a local authority, in accordance with the provision made in the last Amendment, should be paid out of monies provided by Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 69.—(Existing development contravening previous planning control.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 74, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(c) where the works were carried out or the use begun either by or on behalf of the Crown or of a local authority, or by the direction of the Crown or of a local authority, any person who carries out any works in compliance with an enforcement notice in respect thereto shall be entitled, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, to recover from the local plan-


ning authority compensation in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred by him in that behalf.
This Amendment is a good deal less controversial than the Amendment I moved earlier this afternoon and, in the absence of the Lord President of the Council from the Chamber, I think it unlikely to provoke any heat on the other side of the Committee. It is in fact largely an exploratory Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a similar Amendment was moved in the Standing Committee. The intention is to protect owners of land from financial loss incurred in removing non-conforming structures erected on their land at the behest of the Crown or local authorities. I think I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman when I say that he acquiesced in the principle behind this Amendment, but gave it as his view that the principle we seek to establish is already based in the existing law in the Compensation Defence Act, 1939, and in Section 10 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act of 1945.
The question arose as to whether the provisions of those two Acts were perhaps too narrowly restricted to the circumstances of the war to meet the larger purposes which we have in mind. When the Amendment was moved in Standing Committee, it was not pressed because we were anxious to give the Minister time to consider whether the point we have in mind, and which is expressed in the language of the Amendment, is wholly covered by the provisions of those two Statutes. By now, the Minister will have had time to take such counsel as he deemed proper, and we shall be glad to hear his views on the points to which I have given expression.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member is quite right. This matter was discussed in Committee, and an Amendment on similar lines was withdrawn on my promise to examine the matter. I have examined it, and, in this case, I remain of the opinion that I held when the Amendment was moved in Standing Committee. I think that in all proper cases there is statutory provision for payment of compensation, particularly under the two Acts to which reference has been made.
6.0 p.m.
There is a residuum of cases where no statutory provision is made for compensation, and I see no particular reason why

provision should be made in this Bill. The law does not provide in every case that where a nonconforming user is removed compensation shall be paid, and the cases contemplated in the Amendment, other than those already provided for, generally seem to me to be appropriate for the payment of compensation. There is one other point, and that is that compensation under the Amendment would be paid by the local authority. It seems to me quite wrong that the local authority should have to bear this cost. I suppose a common case would be that in respect of an order for the removal of air-raid shelters. The question is whether the owner should bear the cost of the removal or whether the local authority should bear that cost. It seems to me quite equitable to call upon the owner to bear the cost of the removal of the shelter. So, as a result of further consideration I think there is no particular reason why the cost of removal should be met out of public funds. Therefore, I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the Minister say if, in the case of air-raid shelter cases which he quoted, he would be of the same opinion if the owner in question had preferred to retain the air raid shelter had he not been directed to remove it? Would he not think it equitable for the local authority to pay the cost in that case rather than the owner of the land?

M. Silkin: Yes, I should be of the same view. The air raid shelter was put up for a specific purpose and if on planning grounds the local authority requires it to be removed, it should be removed.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that the Minister will give this further consideration. I remember the discussion upstairs which the Minister has correctly summarised, but I am by no means certain that all the points are covered by existing Statutes. I would ask the Committee to look at the background. Clause 69 deals with existing development which contravenes the provisions of planning control, and, in effect, gives a sanction to the planning authority by means of an enforcement notice served upon the owner to remove an offending structure. Such a structure might be of several sorts or of different kinds while different expense might be involved in destroying it. During the war it was


necessary, for a number of defence purposes, for owners in the interests of the country to carry out the wishes of some Government Department, and erect upon their land structures which were in defiance of planning control. Parliament has made some attempt to remedy this matter by a special Act of Parliament which is referred to in this Bill—namely, the Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Act, 1946, under which it is possible for the sin to be condoned—for the offending structure to be legalised by a later ceremony. But the position still remains, in my judgment, that under this Bill, which does give power to serve an enforcement notice, a man might be given an enforcement notice telling him, maybe, to dig up a mile of runway, which is a very common disfigurement of some of our land at the present time. I feel that we should not part with the power we are

Division No. 201].
AYES.
[6.7 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W (Armagh)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Baxter, A. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Howard, Hon, A
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Kendall, W. D.
Renton, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Mai. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Butcher, H. W.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Byers, Frank
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Lipson, D. L.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Channon, H.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clarke Col. R. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Davidson, Viscountess
MacLeod, J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Studholme, H. G.


De la Bère, R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. 'W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Walker-Smith, D.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Hon, G. R.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gage, C.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Gammans, L. D
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (C'no'ster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.





NOES.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V
Bacon, Miss A.
Blyton, W. R.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Barstow, P. G.
Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)


Allighan, Garry
Barton, C.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)


Alpass, J. H.
Battley, J. R.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Bramall, E. A.


Attewell, H. C.
Berry, H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)


Austin, H. Lewis
Beswick, F.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Awbery, S. S.
Bing, G. H. C.
Bruce, Major D. W. T


Ayles, W. H.
Blackburn, A. R.
Buchanan, G.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Blenkinsop, A.
Burden, T. W.

giving without ensuring in such a case, where the infringement of good planning was not due to wantonness or lack of care for the amenities of the countryside but due to direct obedience to a defence requirement, that there is adequate provision for protecting a man from the consequences of his patriotic act. I feel that purely as a matter of drafting the Amendment we propose would have been happier if it had been in the form of a proviso, "Provided that where work has been done at the behest of the authorities there shall be no charge on the man for restoring it." I am bound to say that, because of the state in which the Minister has left the matter, we should press it to a Division in the hope that it will induce him to look at it again.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 257.

Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Robens, A.


Callaghan, James
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Royle, C.


Chater, D.
Keenan, W.
Sargood, R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kenyon, C.
Scott-Elliot, W


Clitherow, Dr. R.
King, E. M
Segal, Dr. S.


Cobb, F. A.
Kinky, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Cocks, F. S.
Lang, G.
Sharp, Granville


Collindridge, F.
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Collins, V. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Colman, Miss G. M
Leslie, J. R.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Comyns, Dr. L
Levy, B. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Simmons, C. J.


Corvedale, Viscount
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Cove, W. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lyne, A. W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Daggar, G.
McAdam, W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Daines, P.
McAllister, G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McEntee, V. La T
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mack, J. D.
Solley, L. J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McLeavy, F.
Stamford, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stephen, C.


Deer, G.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Diamond, J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stross, Dr. B.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Donovan, T
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Driberg, T. E. N.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Swingle, S.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Sylvester, G. O


Dye, S.
Medland, H. M.
Symonds, A. L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Edelman, M.
Messer, F.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Farthing, W. J.
Mitchison, G. R
Thurtle, Ernest


Field, Capt. W. J
Montague, F.
Tiffany, S.


Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Titterington, M. F


Foot, M. M
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Tolley, L.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Nally, W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Naylor, T. E
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Goodrich, H. E.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Walker, G. H.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Warbey, W. N.


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Weitzman, D.


Grierson, E
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T.
West, D. G.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Palmer, A. M. F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Hale, Leslie
Pargiter, G. A.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Hall, W. G.
Parker, J.
Wilkes, L.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Parkin, B. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hewitson, Captain M.
Peart, Capt. T. F
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hobson, C. R.
Piratin, P.
Williamson, T.


Holman, P.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wills, Mrs. E A


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Porter, C. (Leeds)
Wilson, J. H.


House, G
Price, M. Philips
Wise, Major F. J


Hoy, J.
Pritt, D. N.
Woodburn, A.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Proctor, W. T.
Woods, G. S.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ranger, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Rankin, J
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Zilliacus, K.


Irving, W. J.
Reeves, J.



Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Reid, T. (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Jay, D. P. T.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Mr. Hannan.


Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 73.—(Compensation for abortive expenditure on refusal of permission for other development authorised before appointed day.)

6.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall): I beg to move, in page 79, line 15, after "order," to insert:
or
(b) that the buildings or works in question. were begun or contracted for at a time when no resolution to prepare or adopt such a scheme had taken effect.
This Amendment is the result of an undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave in the Standing Committee. Clause 73, as drafted, provides for compensation for abortive expenditure where permission is refused for development contracted for on the strength of a scheme or interim development permission under existing law. The Amendment really extends the Clause to cover development begun or contracted for at a time when no planning control was in operation. The practical effect will be confined to development begun or contracted for before the Act of 1943 was in operation, in areas where no scheme or resolution was in operation. The Amendment is proposed in response to a request from the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 79, line 31, leave out "any work carried out," and insert:
anything done for the purposes of any such buildings or works as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of this Section if it was done."—[Mr. F. Marshall.]

Mr. F. Marshall: I beg to move, in page 80, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(4) The reference in Subsection (3) of Section thirty-one of this Act to compensation under Part III of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to compensation payable under this Section.
This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 31 (3) (b), provides that the regulations dealing with the delegation of functions to district councils may also transfer to those councils the liability for payment of compensation under Part III of the Bill. The Amendment provides that the regulations may similarly transfer liability for payment of compensation under Clause 73 for abortive expenditure. Under Clause 73 compensation for abortive expenditure is

payable by the local planning authority where permission is refused under the Bill for development authorised by an interim development permission granted before 22nd July, 1943, which lapses as a result of the Bill or by an operative scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 84.—(Land subject to notice to treat on appointed day.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 91, line 18, to leave out from "land," to "the," in line 23, and to insert:
is compulsorily acquired after the appointed day by any authority or person in pursuance of a notice to treat served before the passing of this Act.
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that in cases where notice is served before the passing of the Act and completion takes place afterwards the basis of compensation is the existing basis—that is, the 1939 value—and that the owner is paid on the full value of his land without any reduction in respect of development value, but that he is not in a position to make any claim out of the £300 million. That is to say that even though completion takes place after the coming into operation of the Measure he is deemed to be completing and carrying out the transaction as if it were carried out before the passing of the Act.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a very short explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the purpose of this Amendment, but on my reading of the Clause, and having regard to later Amendments and new Clauses which are on the Order Paper, I should have thought that it had precisely the contrary effect to that stated by the hon. Gentleman. I am in a little difficulty in discussing this because it comes before the discussion on the new Clauses, but as I understood the right hon. Gentleman he said that the purpose of this Amendment was that where a notice to treat was served before the passing of this Measure, and completion takes place afterwards, the purchase should still be on the basis provided in the 1944 Measure. As I read the Clause with the Amendment it provides that where an interest in land is compulsorily acquired after the appointed day in pursuance of a notice to treat served before the passing


of this Measure then, in the words of the last four lines of the Clause itself,
… the provisions of this Act and of any scheme made under … Part V shall apply in relation to that interest as if the purchase had been completed immediately before the appointed day.
I hope I shall be allowed to put this point because we really should have an answer on this before we go any further. As I understand it, where the completion takes place after the passing of the Bill and before the appointed day the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to bring in a different scale of compensation to that provided by the 1944 Act. And that is how I read something which stands in the Minister's name later on the Order Paper. If my interpretation is right then what the hon. Gentleman has said in moving this Amendment would appear to me to be completely wrong. I do not know what is behind this Amendment. In some cases the object which the Minister has stated would be to the serious disadvantage of persons who are likely to lose their land, because where the values which the right hon. Gentleman is going to provide for payment under the other Clauses are higher than the 1939 values I assume that the local authorities will rush in with their notices to treat before this Bill becomes an Act. Where the present prices are lower they will, of course, hold their fire. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more specific about this because as I understand it this Amendment, read with one of the new Clauses on the Order Paper, will mean that the effect will be precisely the contrary to that which he stated in moving the Amendment.

Mr. David Renton: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is right about this, I think the Government may find certain difficulties in regard to compulsory purchase under the Transport Bill. It may be within the recollection of the learned Attorney-General that when the Transport Bill was before the House, on the Report stage, last week, the Solicitor-General allayed certain fears which we expressed about compulsory purchase under that Measure by telling us that all would be well, because the 1939 value was to be swept away under this Town and Country Planning Bill. If the appointed day under the Town and Country Planning Bill is to be a long time after 1st January, 1948, on which

day the Transport Bill comes into operation, the fears which we expressed and which the Solicitor-General allayed with regard to compulsory purchase under the Transport Bill will remain. I feel, therefore, that before we part with this matter we should have some assurance from the Minister that the intention expressed by the learned Solicitor-General last week will not be defeated by the Amendment now under consideration.

Mr. Silkin: I have enough troubles of my own without having to deal with the Transport Bill, but the intention is that the operative date of determining the basis of compensation should be the date of the notice to treat, regardless of when completion takes place. Otherwise, it would be possible for a person to put himself on a different basis of compensation to his own advantage by delaying completion. He could almost decide what suited him best and endeavour to manoeuvre the date of completion accordingly. As I understand the Amendment, the provision is that where a notice to treat has been given before the passing of the Bill the basis of compensation shall be the 1939 value, regardless of whether completion takes place afterwards or not. That is the intention of the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not think we can leave it like that, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his difficulties, but I am myself in a difficulty in dealing with this since there is later on the Order Paper a Clause headed "Compensation for compulsory acquisition after passing of this Act and before the appointed day." I cannot enter into a discussion of that new Clause in any detail, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that it sets quite a different standard from the 1939 prices. This Clause says—concerning the interest in land in respect of which notice to treat is given before the passing of the Act—the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to that interest as if the purchase had been completed immediately before the appointed day. The point I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman is this. Will that not have the effect of bringing into operation the new Clause to which I have referred—if it is inserted in the Bill—and so of abolishing the 1939 prices as the basis in relation to any land acquired under a notice to treat served before the


passing of the Act and in respect of which the compulsory acquisition has not been completed before the passing of the Act?
The right hon. Gentleman put a point of some force with regard to the necessity or desirability of using the service of the notice to treat as a determining factor, but that cuts both ways, because just as you may have a delay in completion taking place to suit the pockets of the individual acquiring or selling, you may equally have local authorities taking advantage of the difference so as to benefit themselves by the service of the notice to treat. I assume from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he contemplates that local authorities shall have power to serve their notices before this Bill becomes an Act so as to claim the advantage when they can of being able to acquire at lower prices than they would have to pay for that particular interest directly after this Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Silkin: It is not at all clear whether they will obtain any advantage because after the passing of the Act they will be able to buy at the restricted values with the development value taken out. It is not at all certain, therefore, that it would be to their advantage to serve notices to treat in anticipation. In that way they make themselves liable to pay the full 1939 value. It is a question for consideration whether the 1939 value is higher than the restricted value. I do not believe that the local authorities are going to act irresponsibly and rush in, even if they were in a position to do so, merely to get some advantage over the owner. As a matter of fact, a good deal of the pressure to change the basis of compensation has come from the local authorities themselves. They would be the last to seek to take advantage and act so as to deprive an owner of compensation to which, in their opinion, he was entitled.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: In regard to the Minister's reply to me just now, I quite appreciate that he has enough trouble with this one Bill, but I must ask him to tell us how this Bill will dovetail in with Clause 8 of the Transport Bill, as read with Clause 46 (2) of that Bill. It is not until that dovetailing has been done, that we can be assured there will be no injustice when the

Transport Commission are purchasing compulsorily, as is envisaged.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 91, line 24, leave out "the said Part V," and insert "Part V of this Act."—[Mr. Silkin.]

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 91, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where any interest in land is compulsorily acquired before the appointed day by any government department or local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act. Then—

(a) the provisions of Part V of this Act and of any scheme made thereunder shall have effect in relation to the land as if that interest had been subsisting on the appointed day with all incidents to which it was subject immediately before the date of the notice to treat, as if the land had been on the appointed day in the same state as it was immediately before the date of the notice to treat, and as if the person who was entitled thereto immediately before the date of the notice to treat had been entitled thereto on the appointed day; and
(b) except as aforesaid, no payment shall be made under the said Part V in respect of the interest so acquired, or in respect of any interest derived therefrom.
(3) Nothing in Part VII of this Act shall be construed as exempting from the payment of a development charge under Part VI of this Act any operations carried out on land acquired as is mentioned in the foregoing Subsection, or any use of such land.
(4) Subject as hereinafter provided, the foregoing provisions of this Section shall apply in relation to land, or an interest in land, which is acquired by agreement by any authority or person who had power or could have been authorised to acquire the land or that interest compulsorily under any enactment as if the land had been compulsorily acquired, and as if notice to treat in respect thereof had been served on the date on which the contract was made:
Provided that where the land is so acquired as aforesaid before the appointed day in pursuance of a contract made after the passing of this Act, the contract may provide that Subsections (2) and (3) of this Section shall not apply to the land or any interest therein.
We are dealing here with the basis of compensation where a notice to treat has been given after the passing of the Bill and completion takes place before the appointed day. Here the basis of compensation is that the owner will get the restricted value, and will be entitled to claim compensation in respect of development value out of his share of the £300 million.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I find that the right hon. Gentleman's short statements are wonderfully clear and easy to follow, and I congratulate him upon it, but he has said nothing in regard to the new Subsection (3) which he proposes to incorporate in this Clause. Will he say what is its purpose, and what it is meant to do? The Subsection reads:
Nothing in Part VII of this Act shall be construed as exempting from the payment of a development charge under Part VI of this Act any operations carried out on land acquired as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection, or any use of such land.
Presumably, it is meant to deal with land which is acquired under the notice to treat served before the passing of the Act and the compulsory acquisition taking place after the appointed day. How, under these circumstances, will there be a liability to pay a development charge? If the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman has said is to remove that particular burden, what is the point of Subsection (3) which appears to contemplate in certain circumstances the levelling of a development charge.

Mr. Silkin: Subsection (3) contemplates that in those circumstances there will not be exemption.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish to revert to my point on the previous Amendment, as I did not catch the Minister's last observation. Does he say that the effect of Subsection (3) is to exempt from liability to pay development charge, or is it to keep the liability alive? As I read it, it is drafted so as to keep liability for payment of development charges alive, and if that is so, my question still requires an answer. What is the point in keeping it alive, in view of the earlier Amendment the Minister has moved?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is very difficult to understand the application of Part VII to the problem under discussion. Part VII, referred to in Subsection (3) of the Minister's Amendment, deals with applications to special cases. It is a collection of the odd cases, in respect of which the general rules of the Bill do not make automatic provision, and which require special enactment to fit them in. There are, for example, unfinished buildings,

compensation for abortive expenditure, land ripe for development, mineral workings, land held by local authorities for general statutory purposes, land held for charitable purposes, Crown land, and so on. It is very difficult to follow how it is conceivable that anything in Part VII can be construed
as exempting from the payment of a development charge under Part VI of this Act any operations carried out on land acquired as is mentioned in the foregoing Subsections, or any use of such lands.
I am wondering if there is not some drafting mistake, or whether there is not a misprint. I hope the Minister will clear up this point in regard to Part VII, which puzzles me considerably.

Mr. Silkin: The relevant Clauses in Part VII are Clauses 76 and 78. These Clauses provide that in respect of certain land held by local authorities and statutory undertakers, on the appointed day, no payment can be made in respect of compensation, and no development charge will be levied. Where land is acquired after the passing of the Act, then it is right development charges should' be levied, and Subsection (3) provides that nothing in Part VII—that is anything in Clauses 76 or 78—is to be construed as exempting these cases from development charges. I hope that I have made it clear.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Clause 76 (2) definitely says that no payment shall be made under Part V of this Act
in respect of any interest in land which, on the appointed day, is land to which this Section applies.
It goes on to say that there shall be no liability for development charges under Part VI. We now have this curious Subsection which says that nothing in Part VII shall be construed as exempting payment of a development charge under Part VI.

Mr. Silkin: That is after the passing of the Act.

Mr. E. Fletcher: It seems to me that the Minister's explanation is perfectly clear, but I suggest that at some later stage, there should be substituted for the words "nothing in Part VII" the words "nothing in Clauses 76 and 78 of this Act."

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 86.—(Exchequer grants to local authorities in respect of acquisition and clearance of land in re-development areas.)

Amendment made: In page 93, line 3, after "acquired", insert "or appropriated."—[Mr. Silkin.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 87.—(Other Exchequer grants to local authorities.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 93. line 28, at the end, to insert:
or in taking any action under Section twenty-three of this Act.
An Order made under Clause 23 may require an alteration or removal in respect of an existing building or works, and the expenditure in so doing is recovered by compensation and is liable for grant under Clause 87. In the event of failure to comply, the local authority may carry out the alteration or removal, and the expenditure incurred should receive the same treatment, so far as the grant is concerned, as if it were compensation. In other words, this Amendment is intended to give local authorities the same treatment in respect of action which they take in carrying out works as if they were paying compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 90.—(Power of local authorities and statutory undertakers to contribute towards expenses of local planning authorities, etc.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 95, line 40, to leave out "planning."
This Amendment is to be taken in conjunction with the three following Amendments on the Paper. It is to make it possible for a local authority to make a contribution towards the cost of compensation incurred by another authority.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman said that the object of this Amendment was to make it possible for one authority to contribute towards the compensation paid by another local authority. That is putting it in a rather mild fashion. As I read the Clause, the effect of the Amendments would be to entitle the Minister to order another

authority to make a contribution. I would like to know whether there is any machinery whereby any intention on his part to make an order can be reviewed, whether there is any possibility, apart from putting down a Question, of checking the exercise, by the right hon. Gentleman, of the wide power he is taking? Why is it now necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should take power to order a local authority to contribute to the expenses incurred by another authority? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us a little more explanation of the need for this Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would like to add my request to the right hon. Gentleman for more information. When we find, in a list of Amendments to a Town and Country Planning Bill, an Amendment to leave out planning, we naturally view the context which it is supposed to affect with some misgiving. It does not appear, from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, why he is asking for this Amendment. Line 40 takes us to Subsection (2) of the Clause, which says:
Where any expenses are incurred by a local planning authority in the payment of compensation payable in consequence of anything done under Part III of this Act …
certain consequences follow. The Minister wants to say
… a local authority …
instead of
… a local planning authority …
Part III of this Bill is headed, "Control of Development, etc." It includes Clause 12, whereby one has to apply to a local planning authority for permission. Anything done under Part III must be an activity of the local planning authority. It is the local planning authority which is put, by that part of the Bill, in control of development, etc. It therefore follows that the original words in Subsection (2) of this Clause are right, and should not be amended in this way. Where any expenses are incurred by a local planning authority in operating the planning part of this Bill there is to be power to recoup them. Unless the words "local planning authority" have no meaning at all, as different from a local authority, it seems that the definition in the original draft is the right one. Here is a local planning authority which, under Part III of the


Bill, is to receive and consider applications for permission to develop, and is to operate the machinery of control of development, etc., which is set out in Part III. In doing so, it incurs liabilities for compensation. It is only right and proper that some other local authority, which is a beneficiary by the action of that authority, should be asked to recoup, but I cannot see what is the Minister's objection to the word "planning."

Mr. Walker-Smith: It appears from the insertion of the words in the third of the proposed Amendments that the Subsection would read:
… require any other local authority to contribute towards those expenses such sum as appears to him to be reasonable having regard to any benefit accruing to that authority by reason of the proceeding giving rise to the compensation.
In the penultimate line of Subsection (2) we have a reference to "that authority." Perhaps the Minister will explain this point.

Mr. H. Strauss: If the Amendment is accepted, the right hon. Gentleman can order a local authority to make payment to another local authority if it appears to him expedient so to do. If a different view were held by the authority ordered to pay, would there be any sort of right to be heard, or to make representations, or anything of that kind? I am sure the Minister would not have put these powers into the Bill unless he needed something of the kind in a proper case. It is rather a tall order that one local authority should be ordered to pay another on the ground that the Minister thinks it is expedient that that should be done, without having any power to make effective representations.

Mr. Silkin: There may be an acquiring authority which is not a planning authority. In certain circumstances, a district council may be acquiring land, instead of paying compensation, and it would be proper, in that case, for the planning authority to make a contribution towards the cost of the acquisition. The Amendment does not alter the general principle which was passed in the Standing Committee. It merely provides for the case where it is necessary to make a contribution towards the expenses incurred by a local authority other than the new planning authority. The principle remains the

same: that it is possible for the Minister, if he thinks it is expedient so to do, to require one authority to make a contribution towards the costs incurred by another. That was in the Clause as it stood, regardless of the Amendment, which merely takes note of the fact that a district council which will no longer be a planning authority may be involved. In that sense, I agree that the Amendment widens the provision. It takes account of that fact. and provides for the possibility of a contribution towards the costs incurred by a district council,

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have some difficulty in following entirely the Minister's explanation. He explained the reference to expenses incurred by a local authority in payment of compensation. He then appeared to explain circumstances which would arise when a local authority, not a planning authority, acquired land in lieu of payment of compensation, by which I understood him to refer to the provisions of Clause 17. Thus far I am with him, but how does he relate the expenses incurred in payment of compensation to the circumstances arising when compulsory acquisition under Clause 17 is initiated in lieu of compensation?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I fail to understand this matter correctly and I have a feeling that there may be some mistake. The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman was that there may be a local authority, such as a district council, which was riot a planning authority, and that it might be appropriate in that case to arrange for a contribution to another local authority. But that cannot be right, because the Subsection says:
Where any expenses are incurred by a local planning authority in the payment of compensation payable in consequence of anything done under Part III of this Act. .
If the authority is not a planning authority it does nothing under Part III. If the transaction which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is the acquisition of land, that has nothing to do with Part III of the Bill, but Part IV. Compensation for the purchase of land comes under Part IV. There is something mysterious about this, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot explain it now perhaps he can put the matter right later.

The Attorney-General: We have become involved in a very difficult and technical point, but I do not think there is any real


difference between us, namely that there should be power to direct, in proper cases, one local authority to make a contribution to the other. However, in view of the great authority with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) speaks, I will certainly look into this drafting again. Fortunately for me, the matter can be dealt with in another place.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would not like it to go on my authority. I am just a Member of the Committee, trying to point out a possible obscurity. If we let this pass now it might give rise to unpleasant consequences in the future. I have no desire to frustrate the purpose of the Bill, but I raise this point merely in an endeavour to get it clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 95, line 42, after "Act," insert:
(including any compensation payable in respect of land compulsorily acquired by virtue of section seventeen of this Act).

In line 44, after "any," insert "other."

In page 96, line 2, leave out "planning."—[Mr. Silkin.]

Motion Made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.0 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: With regard to the question of whether the word "planning" should be omitted, I would draw attention to Clause 31. This is included in Part III and gives powers to Ministers to delegate certain powers from local planning authorities to other local authorities. I should imagine that in pursuance of that power of designation under Clause 31 it was thought necessary that the ambit of Clause 90 should be extended from local planning authorities to cover all local authorities.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That is a most valiant attempt of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) to come to the Government's assistance. While no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will welcome any assistance in solving problems raised by Clause 90, I do not think that that is in any way a solution to this problem, or that it alters the necessity of redrafting Clause 90 to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's intention.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think that the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) is mistaken. I do not think that the explanation he has given can apply, because the powers under Clause 31 are limited powers of delegation which would scarcely explain the words which we have just been considering.

The Attorney-General: I am indebted to hon. Members for calling attention to what, I think, is a defect in the drafting of this Clause. The Clause is intended to refer to Clause 17 of the Bill, which is in Part III. To that extent the reference to Part III is correct. In Clause 17. acquisition is an alternative to the payment of compensation. for instance, under Clause 18 by the local planning authority in the case of a refusal, revocation, or modification of permission. The acquisition which is there contemplated happens to be not by the local planning authority but by the local authority. What I think is required is that after the words "payment of compensation" in line 41, we should include "or inclusion of land in lieu thereof," or words to that effect. We will look at that and make the Clause clear.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think that must be the explanation. I have no desire to delay the Committee because I think that the matter can be put right by the redrafting which the Attorney-General considers appropriate We have allowed to pass in silence a number of consequential Amendments which hang on this matter. I mention that because I am confident that in the re-examination these Amendments will also have to be looked at.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 93.—(Transfer of property and officers to local planning authorities under this Act.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 98, line 18, to leave out "and joint planning committees."
This, and the next four Amendments on the Paper, as well as the Amendment to be made in page 99, line 5, go together. The purpose of the Clause is to provide for the transfer of property and liabilities to local planning authorities in accordance with regulations which will be made under the Clause. On consideration, it appears that it would not be appropriate to trans-


fer all property and liabilities to the new planning authorities. In certain circumstances, it may be more appropriate to leave the liabilities where they are. For instance, in the case of superannuation, the assets and liabilities of a fund established under the 1922 Act may have been transferred to a fund under the 1937 Act, and to the extent that the liabilities exceeded the assets, the local authority may have agreed to make that deficiency good by annual payments. In those circumstances, it may be better not to transfer the fund at all to the new planning authority. Similarly, it may be more appropriate that in certain other cases, particularly where we are dealing with a joint planning committee, the assets and liabilities should be transferred to the constituent members of the joint planning committee rather than to the new planning authority. These Amendments are designed to provide the necessary elasticity so that the assets and liabilities of existing local planning authorities may be transferred to such authority as may be appropriate in the particular circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 98, line 23, at the end, insert:
(b) for the transfer to local planning authorities, or to the constituent authorities of joint planning committees, of property and liabilities of such committees."—[Mr. Silkin.]

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 98, line 25, to leave out "any such councils or committees," and to insert "councils of county districts."

Mr. Medland: Does that include a parish council? Is there anything in the Clause which defines "a council of a county district"?

Mr. Silkin: It refers to rural district councils and urban district councils.

Mr. Medland: It may not be a parish council. I think that ought to be defined.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 98, line 28, at the end, insert:
and of officers employed by joint planning committees.
In line 33, at the end, insert:
or the constituent authorities of joint planning committees, as the case may be.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 98, line 34, to leave out paragraph (d).
This Amendment, and the two following Amendments, both in page 99, line 11, go together. The purpose is to secure a more logical arrangement of Clause 93. There are certain regulations which "may" be provided and certain regulations which "shall" be provided, and this Amendment sorts out the two types of regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 99, line 5, leave out from "authorities," to "in," in line 6, and insert:
or the constituent authorities of joint planning committees, on the one hand, and the councils of county districts or joint planning committees on the other hand.

In line leave out "aforesaid" and insert "to which the regulations relate."

In page 99, line 11, at the end, insert:
(2) Regulations made for the purposes of this section shall provide for the payment of compensation, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations by such authorities as may be so prescribed—

(a) to officers who, immediately before the appointed day, were employed by local planning authorities, by the councils of county districts, and by joint planning committees, and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to provisions of this Act or of the regulations; and
(b) to officers who, having before the appointed day been employed in any such employment as aforesaid, would have been in that employment immediately before that day but for any war service in which they have been engaged."—[Mr. Sillein.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Before we part with this Clause, I feel we ought to express the hope that the Minister will make use of these very wide powers of making regulations to overcome what I anticipate will be one of the stiffest obstacles in the administration of this Bill. We have not objected to the, long list of drafting Amendments which he has put before us, as they appear, on the whole, to be giving a little more elasticity in regard to the method of transferring the rights, liabilities, functions and powers from the present planning authorities to the new ones. I have no objection to that, because I


anticipate that one of the greatest difficulties with which those who will administer this Bill will be faced will be the fact that they are altering the planning law and at the same time changing the people who, locally, will administer it. The county councils now for the first time will take their place as the local planning authorities. Those who have hitherto discharged that function, namely, the district councils—which, I will tell the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland), are defined in the Local Government Act of 1933, "district councils" being a well known expression meaning what the Minister said it means—will, so far as this Bill is concerned, be obliterated from the hierarchy of planning authorities, except for certain small delegated functions. It is in starting the new authorities that the trouble will come; that is to say, it is not easy to pick up planning officers to fill these extended spheres of supervision and control which the counties will now administer. My hint to the-Minister on the subject would be that he should use as many as he can of the experienced officers, who have hitherto laboured in the county districts, to start his new county council authorities. It would be a tragedy if the experience of these men were to be wasted, if he were to spend time and trouble in trying to get the new authorities to start from the very beginning with new men. I gather, however, that that is not his intention, and I hope he will succeed in what he does intend.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I rise to inquire about one phrase in the new Subsection (2, a) which it is proposed to insert. In line 6 occur the words:
and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to provisions of this Act or of the regulations.
I wonder in what sort of circumstances the Minister envisages this loss or diminution of emoluments? Is the sort of case he has in mind that of the local authority which, will not be a local planning authority under this Bill, that is to say, a country district, which has a planning officer who does not devote the whole of his time to planning functions and who remains in the service of that authority? Is the case the Minister has in mind the possibility that such officers who carry on their previous functions, less the planning

part of those functions, are likely to receive less in emoluments from the local authority whose officers they are, and that that diminution will be made up under the provisions I have just referred to in the Amendment it is now proposed to incorporate in the Bill?

Mr. Silkin: The case that the hon. Gentleman quotes is a possible case. Another case might well be where such a person is taken over by the new planning authority, but not necessarily at the same rank or with the same remuneration. I think it is right that the new authorities should have elasticity in dealing with the personnel employed by existing planning authorities, although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they will take the fullest possible advantage of the now existing staffs, and use them in the most effective way. We shall in the beginning be very short of personnel in carrying out our functions under this Bill, and we cannot afford to waste any experienced staff who may be available. I am quite certain that the proposed new planning authorities are very conscious of this, and will take the fullest possible advantage of the experience that already exists.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On that too, I share the view of the Minister that there will be a shortage of planning staffs, rather than any embarras de richesses, at any rate in the earlier stages. At the same time, I would like to say how much I for one appreciate the care which the Minister has evidently given to the question of seeing that local government officers do not suffer by reason of the provisions he introduces in this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 104.—(Amendments and repeals.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 105, line 33, after "repealed," to insert:
in the case of enactments specified in Part I of that Schedule, as from the passing of this Act, and in the case of the enactments specified in Part II of that Schedule.
This insertion, together with the new Part I of the Eighth Schedule, which we shall reach later, becomes necessary because the new basis of compensation for compulsory acquisition contained in that Part is being brought into force on the Royal Assent, unlike the bulk of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 105, line 34, at the end, insert:
Provided that the repeal by virtue of the subsection of any enactment specified in Part I of the said Eighth Schedule shall not affect the operation of that enactment in its application to compensation in respect of land compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served before the date of the passing of this Act or compensation in respect of any order or direction made or given before that date.

In line 37, leave out from "not," to the end of the line.—[Mr. Silkin.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 105.—(Special provisions as to London.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 106, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by Section thirty-five of this Act, or by Section thirty-six of this Act as modified by the last foregoing subsection, if the Minister of Health is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that any land within a metropolitan borough (whether designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition or not) should be acquired by the council of that borough for the purpose of providing a public open space, he may authorise that council to acquire that land compulsorily; and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, except Section two of that Act, shall apply to the compulsory acquisition of land under this subsection as if this subsection had been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act:
Provided that the council of a metropolitan borough shall not, except with the consent of the London County Council be authorised to acquire land compulsorily under this subsection.
This Amendment confers powers on the metropolitan boroughs to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of providing open spaces. This is a matter in which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) was interested. At present the metropolitan boroughs have no such power; this is a new power which is being conferred upon them, on condition that they only exercise it with the consent of the London County Council. It is intended, and indeed all that was asked for by the metropolitan boroughs was, that the powers should apply to relatively small areas of two acres, or less, but no limit is provided for in the Amendment because it was felt that the matter could be dealt with by arrangement between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am sure the Committee will turn to this Amendment with a sense of relief, because apart from anything else it is refreshingly free from all ambiguity, and must be welcomed in all parts of the Committee. It confers for the first time on metropolitan borough councils the power to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of providing small open spaces. All those hon. Members who represent London constituencies, as does the Minister himself, will be conscious of the acute need in this congested urban area for small open spaces, and I am sure the metropolitan boroughs will be encouraged by this addition in the Bill to seek out small open spaces, even though it may be only an acre here and an acre there, which can be turned into oases for recreation and safety for the London children who are at present so frequently condemned to play in the streets. It is appropriate that these powers should be exercised only with the consent of the London County Council and of the Minister, but I hope that all metropolitan borough councils will avail themselves to the full of the powers now conferred.

Mr. Piratin: I also welcome the Amendment, but I should like to ask the Minister why it was not possible to include the metropolitan borough councils together with the City of London in Subsection (2, a). If they had the powers under Clauses 36 and 37, this Amendment would not be necessary.

Mr. Silkin: Clauses 36 and 37 deal with acquisition generally by local planning authorities, and the metropolitan boroughs are not planning authorities.

Mr. Piratin: My question still applies; Why did not the Minister include the metropolitan boroughs and give them the same powers as the City of London, which are contained in Subsection (2, a)? The Minister would then have been saved the bother of having this Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: I am not very worried about the Amendment. That method of saving the Amendment would have been much more embarrassing than the embarrassment caused by the Amendment. It would have meant making the metropolitan boroughs planning authorities and so creating 28 planning authorities for the county of London instead of one.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The purpose of the Amendment is admirable, and I have only one query. In lines 2 and 3, it is stated:
If the Minister of Health is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that any land … should be acquired ….
It seems to me that this is a slight invasion by the Minister of Health of the functions of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. It is true that parks and open spaces are healthy and wholesome things, but one of the chief objects of good planning is to provide for the health and convenience of the people, and I should have thought that in a case of this sort, where one might easily get the London plan as such interfered with by the action of the Minister of Health, at the behest of the metropolitan boroughs and the London County Council, it would be as well to provide that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should be the Minister prescribed. There have recently been attempts by other Ministers to invade the province of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Not long ago the Postmaster-General attempted to erect on White Horse Hill a structure which offended the sensibilities of those who feel about these things, and we were all greatly relieved when that project was abandoned. I should have thought that a matter which so vitally concerned the structure of the plan for London as does the provision of open spaces would have been a matter for the Minister of Town and Country Planning and not for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman is now going back on Clause 35 which has been disposed of, and under Clause 35 it is the appropriate Minister—the Minister responsible for the exercise of the powers under which the acquisition takes places—who has the duty of approval, and whose approval is also deemed to be a planning approval. As I explained in Committee, that approval will be given after consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be the closest co-operation between the two Ministers and that no consent will be given by the sanctioning Minister except after consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning. The acquisition of open spaces is a function of the Minister of Health, and, therefore, it is right that he should give the sanction for the acquisition, but he will not give

it without first consulting the Minister of Town and Country Planning and getting his agreement.

Mr. Molson: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the sanction being given by the appropriate Minister. It is our submission that the Minister of Health is the inappropriate Minister. Surely, the matter should go rather further than a mere question of public health. There might very well be cases in which acquisition was not necessary for public health, but nevertheless would add to the amenities of the district, and in those cases would not the appropriate Minister be the Minister of Town and Country Planning?

Mr. Silkin: It is under the Public Health Acts, the Physical Training Act, and various other Acts of Parliament for which the Minister of Health is responsible, that these acquisitions will take place.

Mr. Medland: Surely, the Minister who gives the sanction to the local authority to raise the money to acquire the park or open space is the Minister who should function in this respect. In this case, it is the Minister of Health.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On the question of liaison between Ministers and Government Departments in regard to the acquisition of land for various purposes, of course the Minister will be aware there is considerable concern in the public mind about the exercise of these powers by all sorts of different Ministeries. While I do not wish to trespass beyond the bounds of Order in referring to proposals that are made from time to time that these powers should be canalised and centralised, there is one point to which I wish to refer. The Minister said there would be the closest consultation between himself and the Minister of Health and other appropriate Ministers in these cases. I would like to put a question which is not only proper but most important and practical—can the Minister give some indication as to what arrangements and machinery there arc for liaison and consultation rather lower down the departmental ladder where these matters tend to be initiated, and sometimes to be disposed of, subject perhaps to the retrospective veto of the Minister if his attention is called to what otherwise, in the press of his duties, he might not see, by some agitation in the Press or by a


Parliamentary question? I quite appreciate that in this case the powers are given to the Minister of Health, and given in the wisdom of Parliament, so that no doubt they are given rightly, but I think the Minister would allay a good deal of reasonable anxiety which is felt in many parts of the country irrespective of political feeling if he would address himself to the question I have put to him.

Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister is quite right in calling attention to the Statutes under which the Minister of Health is the appropriate Minister, and that is the reason no doubt why we have the words in this Subsection. The Committee would, however, be making a great error if they were to assume from that fact that the present position was in the least satisfactory. Many of the Acts under which the Minister of Health has these powers are Acts passed before the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry was ever created. It is quite an unsatisfactory position that the Minister of Health should have statutory powers under which he can decide without restriction what land may be acquired for housing purposes, for that vitally affects the whole town and country planning of the country for which the right hon. Gentleman is generally believed to be responsible. I have considerable sympathy with him on account of the number of things for which he may be blamed when he is not really the culprit. That will go on until these matters are cleared up. No one with experience of these matters, and no one who observes who conducts inquiries which vitally affect London and other cities as a whole, at which the right hon. Gentleman's representative does not appear at all, can be satisfied with the present position. It is not true that planning, as between Government Departments, is in any way satisfactory, and it is not true that the right hon. Gentleman will be Minister of Town and Country Planning in anything but name so long as the Minister of Health has so many unrestricted powers as he has at present.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman who, of course, has experience of administration in local government, that there has been a great improvement in the methods of co-ordination between various Ministers. Although I will not pretend for a moment that we can

never trip up, and that a case may not go through which has not been properly examined by my Ministry, I would say that we are improving, and that by and large I hope that to an increasing extent the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will have their say on every single case of development. We are here concerned with open spaces, and it is not likely that the Minister of Town and Country Planning would fear the acquisition of land for an open space.

Mr. H. Strauss: I did not intend anything I said to be taken as a reflection on the present occupant of either of those two offices, or a reflection on the degree of consultation between them. My criticism was of the statutory provisions. I say that a Minister of Health who took an entirely different view of town planning from the Minister of Town and Country Planning could, under present Statutes, wreck the town planning of the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 107, line i6, at the end, to insert:
(5) References in section ninety-three of this Act to the council of a county district shall be construed as including references to the Common Council of the City of London.
This Amendment brings the Common Council of the City of London into the category of those in respect of which regulations can be made for the transfer of functions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 108, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(9) The Common Council of the City of London may borrow money for the purposes of this Act under the City of London Sewers Acts 1848 to 1897, and any expenses incurred by that Council under this Act shall be defrayed as part of their general expenses.
This Amendment reproduces the substance of one which was moved in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman. Its purpose is to give the Common Council of the City the power to borrow money for the purposes of the Bill, and to prescribe how their expenses under the Bill are to be charged.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. Strauss: I only rise at this point because it might cause misapprehension if we were to pass in silence the addition of this Clause to the Bill, though I think the main subject I wish to raise can be more properly discussed when we reach the Report stage proper. I seek your guidance on that point, Mr. Touche. I do not wish to delay the addition of this Clause to the Bill if acceptance of the Motion will not in any way prejudice discussion of this Clause on the Report stage. But if it could be suggested that by adding this Clause at this point we were approving the first Subsection, I should have a good deal to say. I do not know whether you can give any indication on that matter.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Touche): What is the nature of the hon. and learned Member's proposal?

Mr. Strauss: There are on the Order Paper, for consideration on the Report stage, some Amendments dealing with this Clause. On those Amendments everything I wish to say can properly be discussed. I do not want it to be thought that by allowing this Clause to stand part of the Bill now we are in any way prejudicing that opportunity.

Mr. Touche: No, it will not in any way prejudice the hon. and learned Member.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of the 1939 standard for compensation on compulsory acquisition.)

(1) Section fifty-seven of the Act of 1944 (which provides for the assessment by reference to the prices current in 1939 of the value of interests in land which are compulsorily acquired) shall not apply to compensation in respect of a compulsory acquisition of land in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act.

(2) The provisions of the Schedule to this Act (Modifications of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944) shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect in relation to land compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the commencement of the Act of 1944 and before the passing of this Act, and in relation to land acquired by agreement during that period by an authority authorised to acquire it compulsorily.—[Mr. Dalton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I gather that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if something were said on this and the following new Clauses at large, treated as a group. We are assuming that the right hon. Gentleman would be agreeable to that course.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: indicated assent.

Mr. Dalton: The new Clauses hang together. We are here proposing some very substantial changes, which would probably be most conveniently considered as a whole. We are proposing to repeal the 1939 standard of compensation for compulsory acquisition. This standard was first enacted by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill of 1944. Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, and the corresponding Scottish Act of the next year, were originally to endure for five years, that is to 17th November, 1949. There was a supplement on the 1939 value payable to owner-occupiers within a maximum of 30 per cent. of the value of the building. There was much debate about the equity or otherwise of this provision. Last summer a Treasury Order was made increasing the maximum supplement from 30 to 60 per cent. On that occasion I made it clear, when defending that here, that this was a purely interim arrangement, that the whole matter was subject to further consideration in the autumn, in conjunction with the further problem of an increase in value payments.
This was done, but in order to deal with the value payments we were required by Statute to invoke the War Damage Commission. They had to make a preliminary report, which I asked them to do as a matter of urgency. They did so, and following from that there was debate and a decision, and the value payments have been duly augmented. This present Bill had, of course, had to be prepared it an earlier stage and it had to be drafted on the law as it then stood. It is very complicated in structure, and it had to be put into print in good time. The arrangements about the value payments to which I have just referred were only made when the Bill was already in draft, but on the Second Reading of the Bill, when I recommended it to the House, I gave a pretty clear hint that there would be a modification of the 1939 standard proposed at a


later date, if value payments were increased. The increase of value payments was made by the War Damage (Increase of Value Payments) Order which was approved by the House on 21st March last. That has cleared the way for the Government to complete their examination of the question, and to bring forward the proposals embodied in the new Clauses.
The scope of the problem is very wide indeed. It extends far beyond the field of town and country planning. The 1939 standard, and the modifications which we now propose in place of it, appear in town and country planning legislation, but that is a mere incidental legislative convenience. These provisions govern the price paid on all compulsory acquisitions under any Act of Parliament by any Government Department, or local authority, or other public body. It is as wide as that. It includes acquisitions, for instance, under the Defence Acts and under the Housing Acts, by the Ministry of Works under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act and by the Ministry of Transport under the Trunk Roads Act; the acquisition of land by local authorities, not merely for housing but for schools and roads; and local authority acquisitions under the 1944 Act and the present Bill for blitz and blight redevelopment. All that, and a number of other instances which need not he enumerated, are governed now by the provisions that we are proposing to change. They will be governed in future by the provisions of these new Clauses. Therefore, the standard set for compulsory acquisition—and this is why I propose to spend a little while, though I hope not too long, in explaining the matter—covers a very large area indeed of public expenditure, including purchases by the Ministry of Works and the Post Office for the public service generally.
The general effect of our proposals is completely to abandon the 1939 standard. It passes into history. We propose that it should be abandoned as from the passing of this Bill and that, instead, thereafter compulsory acquisition should be based upon the current market value of property restricted to its existing use; that is to say, excluding the development values which it is one of the principal purposes of this Bill to remove from owners, under provisions which I need not go into. That then is the short purpose

—to substitute for the 1939 standard this other standard. As to the date at which this should happen, the Government propose that the new basis should come into force from the passing of the Bill. This is debatable. More than one view might be taken. It might be thought that the matter should date not from the passing of the Bill but from the appointed day. We have considered that. That, of course, is the day from which development values are removed from the owners of land in general. There was something to be said for that. On the whole, we commend to the Committee the passing of the Bill as the suitable date rather than the appointed day. The appointed day cannot yet be named. We hope it will come reasonably soon after the Act is passed, but that must depend on a number of factors which cannot be determined exactly.
If there were an interim period of any length between the passing of the Bill and the arrival of the appointed day, it would be very awkward. People would not know where they were. Therefore, we feel that once the decision is taken to abandon the 1939 standard, that should be brought into effect as quickly as possible. In cases which arise between the passing of the Bill and the appointed day, the owner, who will get the current existing use value only, will have preserved him the right to claim against the £300 million for the loss of his development value. That is provided in these Clauses. It is very specifically safeguarded. There are suggestions made by Amendments that have been put forward from some parts of the Committee that the new basis should be effective not as from the passing of this Bill into law but as from the original introduction of the Bill. I will not argue the case against that. I only want to assure the Committee that we have very carefully considered all these alternatives and, at the right moment my right hon. Friend, or another Minister, will explain why we have deliberately chosen the date of the passing of the Bill rather than a number of alternative dates several of which I have mentioned.
7.45 P.m.
There is one important though temporary qualification which the Government propose to apply here to the principle of the current restricted value, and that is the notional lease which is a term


which I hope is intelligible to hon. Members. I will give a brief explanation why we have introduced the notional lease here. It is because at present there is a special scarcity value attaching to the right of immediate or early vacant possession. In our present conditions of housing shortage, it is very natural that a special scarcity value should attach to early possession, or even more to immediate possession, and the market prices of land have been modified. When I say modified, perhaps that is a moderate way of putting it. In fact they have been driven up, in some cases beyond all reason, because of the present scarcity. It did not seem to us to be fair that where property is required by the community in the public interest the taxpayer or the ratepayer should have to pay these very inflated prices due to a transitory and quite exceptional condition of affairs. Those prices are due merely to the fact that the right of vacant possession is of special value to a private individual on a private sale. We hope that before long this very inflated level of vacant possession of properties will pass.
What we propose, therefore, in order to deal with the matter fairly, as we think, between the two parties, or between all the parties concerned—including the local authorities who have a right to be treated in these matters as representing the ratepayers—

Mr. Medland: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalton: I am sure that my hon Friend will agree with me and will approve of what is to be done.

Mr. Medland: I do.

Mr. Dalton: Except in the case of agricultural property and rent restricted property—leaving those out—if there is an interest which carries with it the right to immediate or early vacant possession. it shall be dealt with as if there were a lease terminating on 1st January, 1954, interposed between the owner and the right of vacant possession. In other words we notionally deny the right of vacant possession. We insert a lease terminating on 1st January, 1954. There is nothing more to it than that. It does not imply that we think that on that particular date, or round about that date, the scarcities

may have disappeared. They may disappear earlier or they may disappear later. We are not prophesying anything in that field. This date is merely a piece of valuation technique and we are advised that it gives us the best balance of fair play as between the various parties concerned. There may be argument on that and, of course, we will be quite prepared to meet it, but we have put it in as protecting the public while not unfairly reflecting upon the private owner concerned
There may be much Debate on the question of owner-occupiers in particular. Perhaps I might draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the securing of property for reconstruction, which is what we are concerned with here, involves two quite separate stages. First, the legal interests of all the owners in the property have to be terminated so that the property may pass to the public department. Secondly, physical possession of the property must be obtained by the removal of the present occupier. These are distinct processes. It is at the second stage that we might get some special difficulties arising from this state of scarcity of accommodation of which I have been speaking. This is a very real difficulty which cannot be met effectively by monetary compensation at all. Parliament have hitherto met it partly by requiring that as far as possible people living or carrying on business in an area which is acquired should be given an opportunity to get accommodation in the redevelopment area on terms settled with regard to the compensation that they have received, and partly by imposing on the acquiring authority the obligation to find alternative accommodation on reasonable terms. In the Act of 1944 there is a provision to this effect. Clause 42 of the present Bill incorporates that part of the Act of 1944 with slight changes and a somewhat wider scope. I am advised that there are very similar provisions already existing in the Housing Acts and other statutes.
Owner-occupiers or the spokesmen for the owner-occupiers may think they are not being treated as generously as they should be in the provisions we are here making. That point can be argued later. I think it will be found that the owner-occupiers are gaining as a result of this Bill. They are better off compared with the 1939 standard. They are gaining as compared with the changes we are making in the law even if they are not gaining as


much as some of them think they should. If we had let the period run for five years as laid down in the Act of 1944, up to 17th November, 1949, they would have been less well off than they will be. We are advised that the current restricted value subject to notional lease which we are now proposing will in practically all cases give a higher value than the basis which is being repealed, namely, the 1939 unrestricted value plus a 60 per cent. supplement. The owner-occupiers are being made the beneficiaries under this change.
There is only one other point I should like to mention to the Committee, and that is the bearing of these provisions upon war damage cases on which we have had discussion recently in another context. Where total loss properties are acquired, that is to say, properties qualifying for an original value payment, the Clauses here make no special provision for that class of case. The result is that the owner in such a case will get his value payment from the War Damage Commission in the ordinary way. That is not affected at all. The Committee has approved, and I have given an undertaking so far as it is administratively possible to do it, that all original value payments will be made within the present calendar year, or at worst, within the present financial year; but I hope most by the end of the calendar year.

Mr. Medland: What about the converted value payment?

Mr. Dalton: I will speak of the converted value payment in a moment. The original value payments will be made as the Committee have already agreed they shall be and as I indicated in my Budget speech it was our intention. On the acquisition of the property, whether before or after the value payment is made, the acquiring authority will merely pay for what they get, often only a bare site. They will simply pay the current restricted value the property bears in its present state.
There is a little more complexity when we come to the cost of works property acquired before the damage has been made good, and that is where we get the converted value payments referred to by the hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) just now. That is a case where a cost of works payment is due but, before the work is carried out, the property is compulsorily acquired. In this case, the

Government proposal is that the acquiring authority will pay to the owner the full current restricted value subject to the notional lease, if that is applicable—the full current restricted value of the property in its undamaged state. We are advised that that is a practical procedure.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The full current restricted value, subject to something I did not hear.

Mr. Dalton: The notional lease. That is to say, where there is a case of early vacant possession, the notional lease will be deemed to exist and that will modify the value, but it is the property in its undamaged state—the full current restricted value, subject, if there is early vacant possession, to the notional lease. In that case, the converted value payment will be diverted from the owner to the acquiring authority, and the authority will get the converted value payment with the result that the net cost to the acquiring authority will be broadly the value of what they are getting. The owner will get his money in a single sum without having to argue about the amount of value payment and the authority will in effect pay the value of what they are getting, which will very often be only a bare site. I believe that will be found to be satisfactory.
This is a very technical matter and I have barged into a series of lucid explanations by my right hon. Friend and by the Attorney-General and others because it was suggested that it might be useful if I were briefly to summarise the main provisions of these Clauses. When we come to the Clauses separately, no doubt questions may arise, but I think it would not be convenient that I should continually intervene. I hope the Committee will think it proper, this having been said, that when detailed points are raised, my right hon. Friends who are conducting this Measure through in detail should reply. It would have been discourteous of me not to have intervened, because from the Treasury point of view these Clauses are of great importance.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It would be discourteous and ungracious perhaps if I were to say nothing about the intervention which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in the Debate. I am sure the work of the Committee will


be aided by the brief and rapid description of the new proposals which he laid before us. My hon. Friends and I rejoice that the 1939 prices are being departed from. It was quite obvious that the problem of valuation on the 1939 basis was with the passage of time becoming daily more and more fantastic and unreal. No valuer could call to his mind with any degree of certainty what the conditions were in 1939. Since 1939 everything has altered in the property market as well as in many other aspects of national life, and to ask people by Statute to throw their minds back to that now remote period was asking them to value on a basis which was no valuation at all but mere guesswork. The adoption of a current market value, even though restricted, is an improvement on those notional 1939 prices. With every day that passes, the longer we get from 1939 the more difficult and absurd the other thing becomes.
The only general criticism I have to make of the proposals before us is that although they are an improvement, they substitute for the 1939 prices a very complicated and involved system. At least, it appears so to the ordinary man who looks at it. There was a letter in "The Times" this morning written by Mr. Howard which stated that for 12 identical properties in the same street, under the terms of this Bill, 12 different prices would actually be obtained for each of the houses according to whether it was owned by an owner-occupier or owned under a lease, according to the date of the notice to treat, and according to whether it was war damaged badly enough for a value payment or a cost of works payment. It is clearly advantageous to the Committee and to the country as a whole if we can simplify this in order to let people know where they stand, but this device of a notional lease we shall have to deal with later in detail. The Chancellor said it was a piece of valuation technique The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a master of meiosis. To call a thing a mere matter of valuation technique whereas it is really calling a freehold a leasehold, seems to be stretching the modesty of expression beyond endurable limits. We shall, therefore, pass the Clause which is before us in a mood of subdued gratitude not unmindful that, though one false standard has been abandoned, we are asked in general

to put in its place one which, if it has the merit of modernity, is not free from that obscurity and uncertainty which frequently characterises the remotely antique.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Piratin: I listened with attention to what the Chancellor had to say in explanation of the several new Clauses. I take it, Mr. Touche, that we are discussing the Second Reading of the first Clause although they are all, in a way, related. I agree that it has been necessary for some time to bring up to date the valuation of property under various Measures which have come before the House from time to time, but I am doubtful about the way in which it has been introduced at this stage. Particularly am I impressed by the fact that this is the latest of a series of Measures which have more and more put money into the hands of the capitalist land-owning class. In 1941, when this country was in a difficult situation, the War Damage Act allowed only 1939 prices. In 1944, after a long and very violent controversy in the House of Commons, a proviso was made for allowing 1939 prices plus 30 per cent. in the case of owner-occupiers. But how was "owner-occupier" defined? It was defined as including not merely people who lived in houses which they owned or were paying for but also large stores with branches up and down the country, branches of banks and all kinds of concerns which normally would never be looked upon as coming within the description of "owner-occupier." I am sure I speak on behalf of every hon. Member on this side of the Committee when I say that we have sympathy with the ordinary men and women who are owner-occupiers, but not with branches of banks, branches of Woolworths and so on. You, Mr. Touche, may recall, as I cannot, for I was not present in 1944, the rather vigorous Debate which took place on that question.
A few months ago, as the Chancellor said, the 30 per cent. was increased to 60 per cent. Once again there was no real definition of the term "owner-occupier." Therefore, while it might be pleaded that it was only 30 per cent. in 1944 and therefore there might be a measure of generosity even to the big people who had suffered, we are now talking about 60 per cent. Also we have a revision of the


Bill, for originally it was proposed to maintain 60 per cent. and now the Chancellor, on behalf of his colleague the Minister of Town and Country Planning, proposes to introduce by this, and the later Clauses, a provision which throws that overboard and inserts 1947 values. If ever there was a running away from facts and a toadying to pressure from the other side, here is an instance of it. I will give an instance of this pressure. I will quote from paragraph 17 of a memorandum submitted by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. This was written a couple of months ago:
The Bill will perpetuate the 1939 standard of value as the basis of compensation for land compulsorily acquired. There is no justification for the permanent retention of this basis of compensation. The Institution adheres to the view which it has expressed on previous occasions, that compensation on compulsory purchase should be the open market value of the land at the date of the notice to treat.
When this matter came up in Committee, the Minister did not see eye to eye with those who made that proposal. Now, however, this new Clause and the subsequent Clauses are being introduced to that effect. This request did not come from owner-occupiers as we understand them, or from their organisations as we know them; this request came from the land-owning class, and from those who represent that class. While it is true that the Chancellor and the Minister have devised some way by which this benefit can go to the genuine owner-occupier, a revision of the definition of "owner-occupier" is called for, because that definition remains as it was in 1944 when we had a different kind of Government from the one we have today. I believe I speak for some, at least, on these benches when I say that we cannot allow that definition, by which Lloyds' and Barclays' Banks and Woolworth Stores are treated in the same way as a man or woman owning his or her own house in some part of London, Manchester, Birmingham, Gloucester, or wherever it may be; we cannot tolerate it, and therefore we cannot accept the proposal contained in this Clause.
The Chancellor admitted that this would mean higher values. Now there has been some doubt about that. Some have been trying to argue that it would mean a saving in the long run. I hope hon. Members who listened to the right hon. Gentleman's words will have noted how the bulk of the increase will fall on the

Government. That is where the additional payment is to come from. That is my interpretation of the Chancellor's speech. Therefore, the Government will pay, and the Government means the public. So the public will pay. However, if it was not in that particular form, what would it mean? It would mean that rates would go up and the public, in that sense, would pay. It would mean that rents would go up, and the public, in that sense, would pay. Therefore, the land-owning class will get this increase in the money they will receive for their land, and that money will come from the public directly or indirectly. Here likewise I cannot see eye to eye with the Chancellor in his statement. I think it would be too much to ask, speaking only for myself, that the whole of this Clause should be taken back for further consideration, but I ask those responsible on the Front Bench very earnestly that there should be at least a revision of the definition of "owner-occupier," so that only ordinary folk will gain by this, and not the big people who have made enough money out of the war already.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I think the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), who addressed us with great indignation, might have realised that his reference to the compensation of the owner-occupier has little relevance to the Clauses which we are now discussing—

Mr. Piratin: If I may interrupt the hon. Member, with all respect, he was not here when the Chancellor spoke, and therefore does not know what I was talking about.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I have been here the whole afternoon. I was here when the Chancellor spoke. The hon. Member's eyesight must be at fault.

Mr. Piratin: The hon. Member's sense of geography is at fault.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I cannot follow the relevance of that interjection except to say that I have been here in this place during the whole afternoon, and the whole of the time the Chancellor spoke. However, that really is not very relevant to what we are discussing. I would like to say this about what the hon. Member for Mile End said, that the departure from 1939 values for properties which are com-


pulsorily acquired was not advocated exclusively by the land-owning classes; it was advocated by everybody who knows anything at all about the matter, by all the professional bodies, and by everybody who realises that it is utterly unjust to try to compensate a man whose property is taken from him compulsorily in 1947 or 1948 or 1950 with reference to prices of property in 1939. Does the hon. Member really want retention of the 1939 values? If he does, he is certainly in a class by himself. But I am not going to spend any more time on the hon. Member.
The effect of this new Clause is to divide the compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of property for town and country planning purposes into three chronological categories—first, those in respect of which notice to treat was served before the passing of this Bill; second, those in respect of which notice to treat was served after the passing of the Bill, but before the appointed day; and third, those in respect of which notice to treat was served after the appointed day. I had the benefit of attending, at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a gathering at which the Minister of Town and Country Planning expressed the hope that the appointed day would be as soon as possible after the Royal Assent was given to this Measure. He hoped the appointed day would be brought in very soon after. From what we have heard today, and from the new Clauses on the Order Paper, it seems to me that the Minister has changed his mind, and that now there is likely to be a substantial lapse of time between the passing of the Bill and the coming into effect of the appointed day. If not, why should a complex matter be further complicated by introducing a special category of cases of those whose property is compulsorily acquired after the passing of the Bill and before the appointed day? It now seems probable that the appointed day, and with it the effect of the Amendment which I see put down to Clause 5—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the Amendments until the Motion, "That the Clause be read a Second time," has been passed.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I quite agree. and will pass from that point, but I

wished to draw attention to Amendments on the Order Paper which will come on later, in order to say that the effect of the postponement of the appointed day in that way would increase the stagnation of development, which the Bill is already certain to bring about. It would have the effect of further accentuating that stagnation. May I say what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) about this complex matter, and underline it by giving some examples of the different valuations which we will have if these Clauses are passed in their present form?
8.15 p.m.
I will take first a standard example, because I want to relate the valuation of other properties influenced by these Clauses to that standard example. It is the standard example of a three bedroomed, two reception roomed type of house, which sold in 1939 for £800 freehold, and which would sell today with vacant possession for about £2,000 freehold. That is the kind of property one sees on the outskirts of London on new building estates, and it is the easiest type of property to take for the sake of these examples. The position at the present time is that the 1939 value is £800, and from that the value of the site has to be deducted. The value of the site in 1939 would be, say, £100, and £700 would be the value of the building. To that, assuming that it is owner-occupied, we would add the maximum supplement of 60 per cent., which is £420, bringing the value up to £1,120. Add back the value of the site in 1939, and we get £1,220 as the total compensation for the owner-occupier. Up to the time when the Bill becomes law that is the value.
For the second category, which is after the Royal Assent has been given, and before the appointed day, the land and buildings have to be valued at the condition they are in at the time of the notice to treat, but subject to a permanent restriction prohibiting their development other than that development which is allowed in the Third Schedule to the Bill, and the valuation must be at prices current on 7th January, 1947. We are not now considering vacant possession cases, which are specially dealt with under a further Clause in this group. The assumption for my present purpose


must, therefore, be that the property we are considering is let either subject to the Rent Restriction Acts, or on a tenancy subject to a term which expires after 1st January, 1954. In respect of that property we again have a different value. The net rent would be about £50 a year. It would be fairly well secured, because it is a fairly long lease, and the year's purchase would be, I think, 6 per cent., which brings the compensation up to £833, which is very close to the freehold value of £800 in 1939. That seems to be logical, because, owing to the fact that the tenancy is controlled, the owner would be very unlikely to sell the property at a higher price than it would have fetched before the war.
The third category is the category of houses which will be acquired compulsorily after the appointed day. Here, as the Chancellor has told us, we come on to a basis of market value as laid down in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, but on the assumption that the land can only be used for those types of development allowed under the Third Schedule, that is to say existing use with no addition in respect of potential value for development purposes; it is in fact the restricted value of Clause 54., If we eliminate the complications which have been introduced, quite rightly, to cover cases where planning permission has been refused or permitted conditionally, the value at present is likely, even after 1st January, 1954, to be affected by scarcity conditions. In our standard example the value today with vacant possession would be £2,000. It is not likely to be as high as that, but it is unlikely to fall to the 1939 value of £800. We do not know what it will be.
Let us look briefly at the position where vacant possession can be given. Here we have what is known as a notional lease commencing on the date of notice to treat and terminating on 1st January, 1954, at a rent which is five per cent. of the capital value, or a rent which might reasonably be expected upon the assumption that a tenant pays the rates and bears the cost of repairs needed to keep a property in the position to maintain that rent, whichever of those two figures is the lower. I want to ask the Minister if there is anything in his view to prevent the scarcity value entering either into the

capital value or into the notional rent of property of this kind. We see the rubric to the Clause refers to the elimination of the special value attributable to vacant possession. But it appears not to do so, and if it does I should like to be told how it is going to, because I do not see how it does that at all. The value in these vacant possession cases, as I understand it, must be assessed on the assumption that the property is subject to no restrictions and the house itself is worth £2,000 with vacant possession. Five per cent. on the capital value of £2,000 is £100. We have now to ascertain the rental value to see which is the lower, and there again we have to bear in mind the scarcity value. I do not think we can do anything else, because that is what the prospective tenant will think of at once. In the case of a house of this size I think it is safe to assume that the rental value will not be less than £100 a year. So I take that figure as a basis which I myself would value at a six per cent. price.

Mr. Medland: I should like the hon. Member to give us his definition of scarcity value. Does he mean the difference between a property with vacant possession and a property without vacant possession? Is that scarcity value?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not mean that, because scarcity value attaches if properties are let as well as if properties have vacant possession. I mean by scarcity value—and I do not claim any particular sanction for these words—that a special value attaches to that property because there is a scarcity of properties for occupation at the present time. I think that is all I need say there.
I will now go back to the notional rent of £100 and take 6 per cent. for a six years term, when the valuation of the term of the notional lease comes to £490. We have got to add the value of the reversion and a prudent valuer would probably assume that a tenant would give a lower rent at the expiration of the lease. The year's purchase depends almost entirely upon the conditions which are likely to prevail in 1954. I have taken it at 5½ per cent. bearing in mind that money is likely to remain cheap for some time, and at 5½ per cent. the value of the reversion after 6 years comes to £990. Add that to the valuation of the notional lease, the


compensation for the value of the property amounts to £1,480. It is interesting I think to compare this figure, which is almost £1,500, with the vacant possession value of £2,000 and to observe that a value of 25 per cent. is due to vacant possession—in fact 25 per cent is attributable to scarcity. I apologise for going at such length in all these details.
I want now to deal with the valuation of these properties in round figures. A house worth originally £800 with vacant possession is worth £2,000 today. If it were compulsorily acquired the owner would receive about £1,200 under the present law; £800 if notice to treat were served after the day of the Royal Assent but before the appointed day, and about £1,500 if notice to treat is given after the appointed day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury referred to the letter from Mr. Edmund Howard in "The Times" today. I enjoyed reading that letter because it justifies my contention that there are so many complications. Mr. Howard concludes his letter with these words:
… although justice may be done, the man in the street will certainly not see how it is done.
I agree with those sentiments. The intrinsic value of a property under these proposals becomes completely subordinate to factors such as the nature of the occupancy and the date of notice to treat. I think some of these are quite inevitable, and I agree that we must make provision for the smooth transition from the 1939 values to the new basis of market value for existing use. But some simplification can be made and I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman one way in which that can be done and that would be to eliminate the special proviso covering the period between the date of the Royal Assent and the date of the appointed day. I apologise for keeping the Committee so long on rather technical points, but I think that they were worth making.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Medland: I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) in all those intricacies into which he and his profession have led us this evening, but I should like to say that immediately the decision was made to increase the uplift on

damaged buildings and to give the owner-occupier a 30 per cent, increase over and above other owners, there began this descent from the 1939 standard. When we, in response to great agitation and a great sense of unfairness, decided to increase the uplift on the 1914 built house from 45 per cent. and on other houses by 60 per cent. it became inevitable that the 1939 standard for such values on compulsory acquisition had to go.
When I saw the Clauses—there has been some argument this afternoon, but I think it was some time in April—I wondered what on earth all the jargon meant. I had a bucket of water and a couple of towels, but they did not improve my ability to understand it. I must say that I think they are a remarkable record which I do not imagine any ordinary man outside the professions could possibly understand. I went to a public authority valuer and asked him if he would tell me what was his view of the proposal to substitute the 1947 standard under the new set-up as against the 1939 one, and how it would affect local authorities who were compulsorily acquiring land for various purposes and particularly for town and country planning purposes. Our own valuer gave this matter his very careful consideration and came back to me afterwards and said that in his judgment, as a local authority officer and from the point of view of the acquiring authority, he thought that the new proposals were substantially fair and gave a measure of justice far in advance of the 1939 basis. At the same time, there were certain questions arising out of the proposed alterations upon which we should like some elucidation from the Minister.
Under the old basis the 1939 value was paid, where land had not received war damage. Under the present proposals current value at existing use excluding the development value is to be paid. We would express the opinion that this will add to the reconstruction account of development authorities. In other words, local authorities which have large areas to acquire in order to replan their towns will find that this adds a considerable sum of money to their reconstruction account for the very simple reason that at the present time the values are greater because of the exorbitant cost of building. We think that while there has been no appreciable increase in the value of land since 1939 yet, because of the extremely high


cost of the buildings, although the addition now goes on to the cost of building and not to that of the land, afterwards it will go on to the land and will increase our indebtedness. We should like some kind of assurance from the Minister in this respect.
The second point upon which we should like an assurance concerns undamaged buildings without vacant possession. Under the 1944 Act we should have to pay 1939 values. Under this Bill and the provision of the new Clause we should have to pay the current value excluding the development value. Incidentally, buildings without vacant possession are very largely subject to lease. We are convinced that this will mean a considerable increase to the acquiring authority—in our judgment something from 45 per cent. to 65 per cent. Since the local authorities will have to foot the bill in their reconstruction account, will the Minister tell the Committee how he proposes to make this up to them? Will there be an adjustment of the grants under Clause 86 to make that possible? The third case about which I wish to ask is the cost of works cases which are not owner occupied. Here again the authority is prejudiced. Under the old law they were liable only for the 1939 value of the site and the remains of the buildings, no supplement being payable to non-owner-occupiers. Now they are liable for the 1947 value of the site and the buildings on the assumption that all war damage has been made good, but they will still get back from the War Damage Commission only the converted value of 60 per cent. In other words, we have to pay the difference between 60 per cent. and all damage made good under this Clause. The position of the owner is improved, the War Damage Commission gain by the fact that they pay only the minimum uplift, and all this is at the expense of the acquiring authority. The local authority must bear both.

Mr. Silkin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Medland: I am very glad to see the Minister shaking his head. These are the problems, and I shall listen with very great interest to his explanation. They are the problems arising out of this Clause as they occur to us. On the other hand, there are parts of the Clause which will he of great value to the authorities, and it is the considered opinion of our advisers that by and large substantial justice is being done. We

hope that with some explanation of the points I have raised the Minister will be successful in his submission of this new Clause.

Mr. Hogg: I must apologise for having missed the preliminary statement by the Minister, but I hope that the Chancellor, and in particular the Minister, will be complimented to hear at any rate the pleasant part of what I have to say. I rose in particular to say how delighted I was when I saw on the Order Paper a series of Clauses one of the main purposes of which was to abolish the adherence to the 1939 value. I think it was a considerable act of courage to take this step because it certainly renders the Minister liable to, and has rendered him subject to, misrepresentation. I think it is a vast improvement in the Bill that he has taken this step, and I am very happy to congratulate him upon it.
I was especially sorry to hear the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) suggest that this was toadying on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues to what the hon. Member for Mile End described as the "land-owning class." In the last Parliament I was one of those who urged rather strongly the adherence to the 1939 value as a political necessity. That was done for reasons which I still think were satisfactory. There were at that time strong political reasons for establishing the 1939 standard of value as the basis of calculation. To begin with, the Bill was introduced during the war. It was particularly necessary to secure some sort of basis of political agreement on the financial Clauses in order to get any sort of Bill at all, and it was only after great difficulty that this Bill was produced on the basis of that compromise.
Hon. Members opposite, who were present in the last Parliament, will have vividly before them the kind of difficulty we had then to face. I was not satisfied that, on its merits, the 1939 value was a satisfactory basis even then, but it had a certain political advantage in that it enabled both sides to agree upon a Bill which was obviously necessary on grounds of higher policy. Now we are in peace time, and it is proposed to depart from the 1939 value, and I can imagine no argument in favour of keeping it. It does not particularly matter, from the point of view of this discussion, whether the present values will remain as they are,


substantially in excess of 1939, or whether, for some reason, the values will fall catastrophically below that level. The real point is that in establishing a basis of calculation for compensation, the further away we get from the date by reference to which the value of property is fixed, the more chancy and artificial the calculation becomes.
Take, for instance, the figure which is still chosen by a pure historic accident as the basis of standard rents under the Rent Restriction Acts—3rd August, 1914. It really becomes a matter of metaphysics when you have to advise people about a property, which, perhaps, has not been let since then. You have to determine what its rent would have been, and then establish your statutory additions, to advise what its rent ought to be now. There can be no advantage, either to the public at large or to any particular class of the community, in adhering to an artificial date of that kind, by reference to which value is assessed. It is for that reason that I think it was mere misrepresentation on the part of the hon. Member for Mile End, and a mere desire to keep values down for the sake of keeping them down, instead of doing substantial justice, which led him to attack the Government for their decision on a matter of this kind. My hon. Friend established one thing at least, and that was that there are numerous pitfalls in trying to differentiate between different types of occupations, on the very crude level on which the hon. Member for Mile End would have insisted.
One really cannot base compensation—although we did so again in 1944—upon the criterion of what is an owner-occupier. To begin with, there are many meritorious owners of property who are not owner-occupiers and there are many owner-occupiers who are not, even according to the standard of the hon. Member for Mile End, meritorious. He quoted Woolworths and Barclays Bank as among those whom he did not wish to see given additional compensation, but it so happens that they occupy nearly every set of premises they own, and so his own criterion would break down if he sought to apply it to the examples he gave. On the other hand, there are numerous owners of small property, who may have acquired it for their own occupation, and who thereafter may

have let it as they grew older and their housing needs became more restricted, or because they have left the locality. These properties represent the life savings of these people.
All this and the very elaborate argument of my hon. Friend establishes the wisdom of the step the Government have taken. There is only one criterion on which compensation should be paid, and that is what the property is worth. If it is to be scaled down, as the Government, for reasons with which I personally do not agree, have scaled it down, it must be scaled down equally, but to attempt to differentiate between different owners of different kinds of property for the purpose of assessment, will only lead us to Bedlam. The only test must be the objective test, and the objective test must be what the property is worth.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: Whatever may be the merits of this proposal, I think it will be generally agreed that it came as a considerable surprise to most people in the country and certainly to most of us on these benches. I can well understand it receiving the approval of hon. Members opposite. Can the Minister assure us that this is not going to mean additional profits or additional sums paid in compensation to the landowners over and above what they would have obtained under the Bill as originally drafted? The argument for the change is that it is perfectly right to limit prices for a short period such as between 1939 and 1944, but that when the period gets longer we are justified in forgetting all about the necessity for the limitation. I do not follow the argument at all. If it is wrong for a short period to refuse to give an additional price, the same argument ought to apply to a longer period.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member will appreciate that all sorts of special circumstances arose as a direct outcome of the war, such as the effects of heavy bombing in some places and evacuation leading to an increase in population in other places. Surely he will agree that there is justification for a special valuation.

Mr. Braddock: The 1939 value was taken because that was the value before all these catastrophes took place and before the results of the war came upon


us. The reason for trying to stick to that valuation was to prevent landowners and speculators making additional profits out of what occurred during the wartime period. That seemed to me to be a sound argument, because, after all, the men who gave their lives in the war were not expected to make any profit out of the war, and the general argument has been that if those who had given their lives get nothing, why should the landowners get additional profits?

Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Member was referring directly to me. If so, he has misrepresented my point. My point is not whether it is desirable to limit prices, because that is not what is proposed. The question is whether compensation is to be limited to a particular type of transaction, namely, compulsory purchase, when prices are not limited and when it is proposed to do it by reference to an artificial date in the past. That is my point and that is what I suggested is wholly wrong.

Mr. Braddock: I contend -hat the 1939 prices were not artificial prices.

Mr. Hogg: They are now.

Mr. Braddock: They were the known prices which existed before war broke out. One great argument against this change is that it would be impossible, after a lapse of some time, to know what 1939 prices really were. It is said, "Let us forget all about it, and judge by present-day conditions." I cannot think that that is a relevant argument. We are not living in times of no printing and no paper, and it is reasonable to expect that if we want to know what 1939 values were, sufficient records will be available to show, if not the actual value of the property in question, the value of a similar property. The Chancellor is assuming what he calls a notional lease. He is admitting that there is need for an artificial barrier to the rise of prices. If we can operate this system by means of a notional lease there is no logical reason why referring back to 1939 should not also be equally logical.
The Chancellor, in putting forward this suggestion of a notional lease, has admitted that it is necessary, in present-day circumstances, to keep some curb on prices. In admitting that he is admitting my whole case, that there is no justification for this alteration. I am prepared to agree that

there are technical difficulties, and if the Minister can assure us that the result of this Clause will not mean payment of any sums to landowners in addition to those they would have received under the Bill as originally drafted, I shall be satisfied. But if the result will mean increased payments to land and property owners, then the people generally will not regard this new Clause with favour.

Mr. Silkin: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I now deal with some of the points which have been made. The discussion has been very helpful, and, on the whole, gratifying to those who have been responsible for the new Clause. The criticisms have not been more severe than I anticipated. This is a complicated matter, and with the best will in the world I have not been able to see how it can be considerably simplified. May I, first, give my broad justification for this Clause? I put it on two grounds. I say that the 1939 standard has become unworkable and that it has become inequitable. On both those grounds, something of this sort is essential. I recognise that, in trying to value property, paper records may be available in a great many cases, although not in all. But valuation is not an academic science. It involves knowing the property. I should be very dissatisfied with a valuation which took place merely on the basis of records. One must know the condition of the property, and the changes that have taken place in the neighbourhood, which is a very important factor in valuation as, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) will recognise. Property may perhaps remain entirely unchanged but, by reason of what has gone on around it, its value may be completely different from what it was before. No valuer can appreciate whether there has been any change of that kind without actually knowing the property. The number of people now in existence who knew the condition of property in 1939 is becoming fewer and fewer. In any case, by general agreement, the 1939 basis was coming to an end in 1949. In this Clause we have anticipated the change by about two years.
I say that the 1939 standard is inequitable because, although, when the 1944 Act was passed, we sought to pre-


vent people benefiting as a result of the war, today we find that many changes of ownership have taken place. So many people have had to buy property during the war, that to impose a 1939 basis for acquisition would be inequitable in a great many cases. Although, in some cases, it may be equitable to pay a 1939 value, I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), that we cannot base our compensation on the individual who happens to be the owner. We are buying land and buildings, and we have to pay compensation on the basis of what we are buying, and not on the basis of ho happens to own it, or even when he bought. Therefore, I think that continuance of the 1939 basis would have been inequitable and generally regarded as inequitable.
I have had representations from local authorities who have felt inhibited from compulsorily acquiring land which they ought to have acquired for public purposes because of the working of the 1939 basis. I have had representations from local authorities, not necessarily those of one political complexion, who have said that they were in great difficulties about operating 1939 values. We have recognised this in the case of the owner-occupier. Some months ago, we increased the 1939 permitted addition from 30 per cent. to 60 per cent. in his case, with the general approval of the House. I do not think that there was any opposition to it. So I feel that the time has come to make a complete change from the 1939 basis.
Now let me comment on the observations of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) who, on these matters, speaks with an authority which I cannot pretend to equal. He inferred, incorrectly, that there had been a change of view about the fixing of the appointed day. I am not aware that there has been any change. I do not know on what basis he inferred that; there is evidently some internal evidence in the Clause which I have not been able to fathom. In fact, there is no change of view about the date of the appointed day. I cannot tell the Committee when the appointed day will be, not because I would not if I could—I do not want to make any secret about it—but because I cannot say when the organisation will be complete to enable the appointed day to be fixed. I can tell the

House, however, that I hope very much that it will be in the early part of 1948. This does not represent any change from what was originally anticipated
9.0 p.m.
That fact may perhaps give some force to the point which the hon. Gentleman made that there is a different basis of valuation in respect of properties where notice to treat was served before the appointed day and similar properties where notice to treat was served after the appointed day. In one case, the basis of valuation was 7th January, and, in the other case, it is the date of the service of the notice to treat. The suggestion which the hon. Gentleman makes is that we should have in both cases the date of the service of notice to treat as the date in respect of which valuation is made. I have very great sympathy with that point of view. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will go into it once more with my advisers to see whether it is practicable. Reasons were given to me which appeared to be convincing at the time, but as they are technical, I will not weary the Committee with them. If it is at all possible—and I am fortified by the experience of the hon. Gentleman—I would prefer to have one date, namely the date of the notice to treat.
The hon. Gentleman is also right in saying that even the formula of the notional lease does not entirely remove the scarcity element. I do not know any method which will do that entirely, except by going back to the 1939 basis from which we are seeking to get away. I think that the right solution is some form of compromise. It is quite wrong to pay market values in respect of land where vacant possession is available, except in the case of agricultural land. I think that the public cannot be expected to chase after inflationary values. There must be some compromise and the formula of a notional lease is, I think, quite frankly the compromise. It does not remove the whole of the difficulty of scarcity value, but it removes a part of it. On the figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted, the payment would be about five-sixths on the basis of 5 per cent. of the value being less than the rent, and on the assumption that the 6 per cent. return is right, it would be in fact five-sixths of the rent. I think that is not bad. It has the advantage, for what it is worth—and I do not want to


put the case too high—of putting the person whose property has been damaged as a result of enemy action in something like the same position as the person whose property has been acquired compulsorily. In fact, even now, the person who has suffered war damage will get slightly less compensation than the person whose property is being acquired. I do not put it any higher than a compromise, and the best compromise which we have been able to devise. We want to reduce compensation in respect of scarcity value, but we feel that we have to pay something. If anyone can produce a better compromise, my mind is quite open on the subject.
The hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) raised the question of the effect on local government finances. I think he answered himself when he said that broadly speaking the local authorities were satisfied that this was reasonable, and that he did not think it would materially affect their financial position. I think that is so because, where on the one hand they will be paying on a higher basis of valuation for their land, on the other hand they will be paying on a restricted value—that is, the value of the land free from the development value. Setting one off against the other, I should say that by and large they will not be any worse off. I think that probably answers the hon. Member for Mitcham, who asked whether the additional sums paid in compensation to the landowners under the new Clause would be greater than the amounts that would have been paid under the Bill as originally drawn. The answer is that the amounts actually paid will be higher, and that is the intention. It flows from the 1939 basis being abandoned. On the other hand, if it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, the owners of land will in fact be paid on the restricted basis of the value of their land without development value, in respect of which they will make a claim on the fund of £300 million.

Mr. Braddock: If they are suffering hardship.

Mr. Silkin: I am not able to say what the regulations will be, but they will be paid on the basis of the restricted value of the land, though on the present day value and not on the 1939 basis. That being the case, I should not have thought they were being treated too generously. or in a manner of which my hon. Friend need complain.
I have endeavoured to deal with what has been said on the new Clause, and I should like to thank the hon. Member for Oxford for his observations. At one time he and I fought this fight together. In 1944 we were on the same side against the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but unlike him I think we were right in those days, both politically and in equity. I am very glad to have his moral support for the new Clause, and as we have this rather long and interesting discussion, I hope that we may be able to save some time on the Amendments to it which will now have to be discussed.

Mrs. Middleton: Before my right hon. Friend concludes his remarks I would like to ask him a question. I understood him to say that the owners of war damaged property would be slightly worse off than those whose property was acquired and had not been subject to war damage. Was he referring to the original value payments in that regard, or to converted value payments, or did his remarks apply to both? I would further like to ask him whether he is not of the opinion that the balance should have been tipped in the other direction, in view of the fact that the owners of war damaged property have in many instances been deprived of the use of their property since the war damage occurred?

Mr. Silkin: This is not the time to discuss the merits or demerits of payments for war damage. I was pointing out, what I think is an obvious fact, that the value payments, even with the additions made under the recent order, will be less than the compensation that will be paid for acquisition. Of course, if a local authority acquires war damaged property, they will pay on the same basis as they will if they acquire any other property. I was really comparing the value payment, whether converted or original, with the compensation that will be paid for the acquisition of land.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 5, to leave out "passing of this Act," and to insert:
seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven.


A considerable part of the arguments in favour of this Amendment has already been adduced in the discussion on the new Clause, and I need not repeat it, except to pay a tribute to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), which quite clearly have had a considerable effect upon the Minister's mind and upon his attitude to our suggestion. I think those arguments can be developed a little further in a slightly different connection. An argument which the right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to accept—and I do not press him tonight to say more on it—was that of the three categories of value which will exist now that this Clause is in the Bill, the middle stage should be eliminated; that is to say, there is no logical reason for saying that between the time this Bill becomes an Act and early in 1948 the standard by which the value of the assessment is to be made should be the value on 7th January, 1947. Obviously for that short interval that intermediate stage introduces a great and entirely unnecessary complication. There is yet another complication which, I think, could be eliminated from this Measure without disadvantage, without inequity, and without doing what the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) dreaded—that is, paying anything to a landowner which a landowner should not obtain—and that would be to eliminate the first of the three categories, to eliminate from 7th January, 1947, the assessment of prices in relation to 1939 values.
The reason for that can be put quite shortly. Earlier this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman rather indicated that local authorities might be in a dilemma in determining whether the 1939 values under the 1944 Act, taking into account development values, would be greater or less than the 1947 values from which the development value had been deducted, and he argued that local authorities would not seek to take advantage of buying by serving a notice to treat or buying under the 1944 Act and so getting the property cheaper. I think that the force of that argument has been demolished by observations of hon. Members behind him. I do not know whether, on balance, it will work to the advantage of the local authority, or to the advantage of the owner-occupier of the property. It would

be quite wrong to have anomalies between two adjoining owners of similar property, depending solely upon whether notice to treat was served before or after 7th January, 1947, or the date of the passing of this Measure. That would be unjustifiable and unfair. The local authority may serve the notice thinking it is going to make a good bargain. On the basis of the Bill as at present drafted it will in particular instances be to its advantage to do that. I am not suggesting that a local authority which adopted those tactics would be doing anything wrong. If it is allowed to do it by law; it should pursue that course in the interests of its ratepayers. But that might operate to cause considerable injustice.
9.15 p.m.
Take the question of agricultural land. Does anyone suggest that agricultural land round villages, for instance, where there is no appreciable development value for building, would not have a 1947 value far in excess of 1939 values? Does anyone dispute that, even deducting the development values from the agricultural land? Surely, any local authority which is desirous of saving its ratepayers' money will serve as many notices to treat as they can before this Bill becomes an Act. What is the argument for this differentiation? Why should we not say that where a notice to treat is served after 7th January, 1947, the current values shall be the determining factor? It may be that current values have gone down, it may be, in some instances, that they have gone up. One can be sure, where compulsory acquisition does take place, that the dispossessed person, who may not always be a large, powerful, rich individual, but may be a small man, will get what is assessed at that date as sufficient to enable him to reinstate himself elsewhere in a similar capacity.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will also give serious consideration to making the change from 1939 prices to current prices operate from the date of the publication of this Measure. That will prevent anyone seeking to take advantage of the technicalities of the Measure, a Measure which is bound to be technical, and will also prevent the payment of widely varying prices for similar categories of property. Adopting the most excellent argument of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen


but without seeking to repeat it, and also adopting the argument of the hon. Member for the Drake Division (Mr. Medland), which I think I can also claim in aid in this instance, I express the hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Silkin: I am sorry that I cannot meet the hon. and learned Gentleman on this Amendment. He bases it on the fact that hardship and inequity will arise as between persons who have notice to treat after the date of the Royal Assent and people who have had it prior to that date. But differences in compensation cannot be removed. Whatever date is taken, the same consideration will arise.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: What can be done is to stop local authorities taking advantage of those provisions by serving notice to treat so as to get agricultural land for 1939 prices, before this Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Silkin: I would only say that it is a gross insult to the local authorities of this country to suggest that, by and large, they are going to serve notices in order to be able to acquire land more cheaply. I do not believe for a moment that that is the case. That was not the argument that the hon. and learned Member put forward. His argument was in regard to the inequity that would arise as between people who had received notice to treat on one day and those who had received it on another. My answer is that whatever date is chosen, a similar position is bound to arise. Suppose notice to treat had been served on 6th January, 1947. That person would get the 1939 values even under the Amendment. If the notice were served on 8th January, then he would get the new basis of compensation. There would still be this inequality of treatment as between the two. That is unavoidable, whatever date we choose. There is no particular virtue about 7th January, 1947, except that it is the day on which this Bill was introduced. There is no other significance about selecting that as the date of demarcation. Under a notice to treat served after that date, people will get one form of treatment and under one served before they will get another form. The date of the Royal Assent is the logical date. The Bill will become law and certain things will flow from that. That is perfectly well understood. Moreover, the

alternative proposed would cause great administrative difficulties, but I do not want to put that argument too high.

Commander Maitland: Is it not the case that a situation has arisen in which the country knows that 1947 values are going to take effect and, that being so, would it not be better to remove the 1939 values as soon as possible?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) would be on stronger ground if instead of saying 7th January, 1947, they said the date of the publication of the Amendment, or even the date of this discussion. It may be assumed that it would have taken even the local authorities a day or two to understand the significance of the Amendment. I could have understood that sort of argument, but I cannot understand the argument for 7th January. The fact is that a great many things have happened on the basis of notices to treat given after 7th January. In some cases there have been arbitrations and decisions as to the amount of compensation. There have been agreements entered into, there has been land acquired by agreement and there have been contracts made. I do not suggest it would be impossible to go back on all that and to start again on a new basis of compensation, but it would be exceedingly difficult.
There is one other difficulty which is that the new basis of compensation assumes that permission will be granted in respect of development referred to in the Third Schedule. So far, we do not know what will be in the Third Schedule finally. There are still other stages of the Bill and, although I hope the Third Schedule will remain pure, unsullied and intact, one cannot fix compensation on that assumption. It would be quite wrong to do it. If it turned out that there were changes in the Third Schedule, it might mean that the basis of compensation would have to be revised once more. We might then have one basis of compensation already settled, a new basis if the Amendment were accepted, and possibly another one if there were changes to the Third Schedule—a really impossible position. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the situation and accept the fact that we are doing a very good thing; that the date of the Royal


Assent must be taken and that it cannot be retrospective. If we were to make it retrospective, the logical thing would be to go right back to 1944. The other logical thing, perhaps, would be to date it as from today, but I think the right thing is to date it from the Royal Assent.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I would like to press the right hon. Gentleman a little further. He said it was an insult to the local authorities to suggest that they would serve notices to treat so as to get land more cheaply, but I do not think that is really putting the question quite fairly. The point is that if we leave the Clause as it is now drafted, there will be a period between now and the passing of the Act during which the decision whether or not to serve notice to treat on any particular piece of land will affect the compensation payable to the owner of that land, and the authorities considering acquiring that piece of land can, by taking action, deliberately affect the price which will be paid to the owner for better or worse. It may be that very few authorities would deliberately serve a notice sooner than they would otherwise have done, in order to deprive the owner of a piece of land or whatever it may be, of the value of it. It would be a rare occurrence. On the other hand, I can very well imagine the converse taking place. Suppose we had a local authority of a political complexion which might be favourable to the right hon. Gentleman who failed to serve a notice to treat until, say, a week after the passing of this Bill. I can well imagine what the constituents of members of that authority would say at their having let off such and such a landlord mom lightly than they need have done.
Our objection to this is that it puts authorities into an invidious position. The right hon. Gentleman quite convincingly pointed out the difficulty of making this retrospective to any great extent. Decisions have been taken on matters which it would be difficult now to readjust. If we had to go back to January of this year, it might be that the passage of three or four months would create some genuine administrative difficulties. But I really believe that if we were to go back to the date of the introduction of this Amendment—everyone was fully warned of what was in the wind—for making a change in this respect, I do not believe it would create any administrative difficulties.
After all, it can only apply in the case of notice to treat, and little can have beer done in respect of notices to treat during the eleven days since 1st May. I canner believe that if the right hon. Gentleman were to indicate tonight that he was considering this matter, there would be any administrative difficulty whatsoever about amending the words "the passing of this Act" to the words "1st May, 1947." I press the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is considering this matter further At any rate, no further administrative difficulties will arise in the future, because all concerned will have been warned that there is a possibility of an alteration being made.

9.30 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I speak with some trepidation, having personified the entire Opposition to the Minister in an earlier Act of his, during which I expressed the wish that he might somehow suffer misfortune it touring round the countryside in search of new towns. However, I hope that that fact will not induce the Minister to run away from any concession which he might feel called upon to make as a result of the powerful arguments which have been addressed to him in the last few minutes by my hon. Friends. The Minister in this respect is somewhat like the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he produces an Amendment which causes a change in the law of compensation. What would be said of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who introduced a Budget and made Budget regulations apply, not to the night on which he made his speech, but to some weeks after? The most astonishing effect would take place in the rise and fall of prices. I hope, therefore, the Minister will regard himself somewhat in the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing this change in his Bill, and will realise that certain people will do certain things as a result of his speech tonight as well as on the new Clause which he put down on the Order Paper some few days ago. I hope he will look at this matter again, to see whether it is not fair and equitable to establish the terms of compensation at the date when his Clause was introduced, or even at tonight's date, because that would prevent local authorities from serving notices to treat upon landlords in a great hurry and before the passing of this Measure. As my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said, it might work both ways; it might also be for the benefit of local authorities to have this date put in because they might, therefore, be paying for land something less than they would otherwise have to pay. So I hope that we can get further consideration by the right hon. Gentleman of this question.

Mr. McAllister: The Minister has been so courageous, and at the same time so conciliatory, that it would not be asking too much to ask him to be even a little more conciliatory. The 1939 values were designed to prevent speculation in land in wartime, and to a large extent, they succeeded in preventing that speculation. When one thinks that we have gone through all this escalation, and that it was the Minister who finally came down and said, "We are going to end all that, and we are going to have a new datum line on a realistic basis," one agrees that the Minister is showing himself extremely wise and competent and bold, because he must have known that he was at least risking misinterpretation on his own side of the Committee. We do not take kindly to anything that seems in the nature of a sop to the landlords or any special compensation for them. There was one virtue alone which belonged to 1939 values, and that was the virtue of simplicity, It was a clear-cut datum line of value, and I regret that I cannot see in this and the other Clauses any such simplicity. There will be confusion, there will be a feeling on the part of some people of unfairness. I am quite certain the Minister does not want to encourage any charge of that sort. He has tried to be practical in an extremely difficult and complex matter. Probably hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not expect him to accept their Amendment, but I think that if he would pursue the line of his Second Reading speech, and eliminate the second stage in the valuation process, so that at the worst we have two different scales, and at the best only one scale, it will appear not only that he is being courageous and bold, but, to the ordinary man in the street, he will be doing something which looks strictly like justice. I do not think he need be afraid of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), or my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), because I am sure that as the Bill progresses and it

becomes clear that he is not trying to increase the global sum by one penny—

Mr. Braddock: Might I point out that the question of the global sum of compensation is not being dealt with at the present time?

Mr. McAllister: No, but we are trying here in Committee to get the Bill simplified, so that it can be understood not only by learned surveyors, architects, and lawyers, but by ordinary men and women, who are going to be very much affected by it. I am sure the Minister does not wish to make the law unnecessarily complicated. He will be doing a great service to himself and to the country if he would consider this matter further.

Mr. H. Strauss: I must apologise to the Minister if, not having heard his speech and what preceded it, I either say something with which he has already dealt, or possibly repeat something which has been said, but I promise to be brief. I hope he will respond to the request, which has now been made from both sides of the Committee, to reconsider this date. I can appreciate that there may be arguments against the date which appears in the Amendment, but I ask him to give most serious consideration to an alternative date. I am now thinking of the effect on his Department. I am certain that if he meets the wish expressed on both sides of the Committee he will greatly increase the appearance of justice in this matter, and any increase in the appearance and fact of justice will increase the reputation of his Department and the ease with which it can act. I may be wrong, not having heard his speech, but I gather he suggested that if local authorities hastened to give notice to treat, they would be acting in some unworthy manner and that therefore it was making an unworthy suggestion against them to suppose that they would do so. That is by no means clear. Those who determine the conduct of local authorities may well feel that they are acting in the capacity of trustees, and must do the best they can for their beneficiaries, and if it will be possible for them to acquire land a good deal more cheaply by giving notice on a certain date, they may well conceive it to be their duty to do so.
What is in fact being done by this new series of proposals the Government are


putting forward? They are putting forward a basis of market values in the interests not only of the—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going very wide of the Amendment which we are discussing.

Mr. Strauss: I apologise and I see the line that I must not pursue. I was coming to the reasons for the change of date. Whenever the Government have come to a decision on a basis of compensation, they have generally thought it right to give a warning that they would have regard to the circumstances as they existed at the time when they first announced that decision. If I might remind the Minister—and I am now quoting from memory—I remember answering a question from the Government Front Bench on the publication of the Uthwatt Report, and giving a warning in the name of the Coalition Government that in all subsequent transactions in land, regard should be had to the terms of that announcement, because the Government in their legislation would consider the state of affairs existing at that moment. The right hon. Gentleman will find that reference if he looks it up; and he will find numerous other instances of the same kind where the Government, announcing an important decision or change in compensation to be paid on the acquisition of land under similar circumstances, rightly gave a warning that future transactions must be based on the announcement they were making.
The right hon. Gentleman gave reasons against the date mentioned in our Amendment but none against substituting the date when he tabled his. There will be nothing which is not in accordance with precedent if he enacts in this Bill to make that date the operative date. I do not know haw it will work out, but I am quite sure that he will have avoided injustices which, on any other alternative, would be unavoidable. I do not doubt for one moment that there will be certain difficulties of drafting, as is always the case when we try to make something operate as from a date before an Act comes into force, but those difficulties of drafting are not beyond the ingenuity of the Parliamentary draftsmen and the learned Attorney-General. If the proposal which we on this side of the Committee have embodied in our Amendment, which

has been supported in general by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), is adopted by the Government they will have nothing to lose and a great deal to gain.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I heard the reply of the Minister to this Amendment and I confess I was a little disappointed by it. I hope in a few words to put this matter into its proper perspective. This is not a question of trying to alter the compensation for land publicly acquired. It is purely a question of decent administration. The Government have frequently passed Acts of Parliament which have affected values, and it is a general principle that when that is done, the Minister in charge prevents people utilising the time while a Bill is going through Parliament to manipulate affairs to their own advantage, by forestalling the result which is in the draft of the Bill. It is common in all Budget Resolutions. They date from the time they are announced so that no one will take advantage of an increased tea or tobacco duty or whatever it may be. It has been done already by the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill. If one considers the provisions in Clause 54 for ascertaining the development value of land, a matter that affects landowners, it will be seen, in Subsection (3) that:
For the purposes of this Section, the restricted and the unrestricted values of interests in land shall be calculated by reference to prices current immediately before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven. …
Not the prices obtaining "on the passing of this Act." Why did the right hon. Gentleman introduce in this Clause of the Bill a prior date as the measure by which these values should be ascertained? Quite frankly, he did it in order to prevent the owners of interest in land from manipulating their transactions so as to obtain greater or lesser development values when the Bill is passed. We on this side did not stand up and complain that this was an insult to the probity of landlords, and that no landlord would do such a thing. We know that human nature, whether it be a private individual or the chairman of a local authority committee who is concerned, is very much the same all over the world. The right hon. Gentleman need not accuse us of insulting the local authorities, any more than we accuse him


of insulting the landlords because he took a rudimentary precaution which all wise legislators take by fixing a date for these changes in value so that no one could take advantage of the period between the introduction of the legislation and the Royal Assent.
We say that in some cases the restricted current value may be against the landlord and in other cases in his favour. We are quite agreeable that all cases should stand alike, but we do want to prevent the possibility of this intervening period between the notice of this proposed change in the law—which changes values in land—being used to manipulate the values by changing the date of the notice to treat. That is a very simple question of ordinary, good administration. It is not pro-landlord or pro-local authorities; it is pro-Parliament and its control over the legislation of this country. It is directed against persons using the inevitable gestation period of our legislation to take advantage of what is printed in this Bill and enriching themselves in the process. There is no doubt about the fact that this Bill and these Clauses will affect the value of land, and I say that the date from which the value is affected ought to be anterior to the time when anyone has an opportunity of using it to his advantage. That is the simple principle involved, and there is nothing else in it.
When he replied to my hon. Friend, the Minister said that he based too much of his argument on the theory of inequalities. It is true that if a change is made in the law there has to be a date from which the change operates, and it in all these cases is inevitable that those on one side of the date are in a different position from those on the other side. But that is not the argument for this Amendment. If it is necessary that the law should be changed there will inevitably be a difference between the people on one side of the date and those on the other, but the important point is that one of the parties to the transaction shall not have the opportunity of fixing the date. If the words of this Clause are scrutinised, it will be found that everything hangs on the date of the notice to treat, and that is a date that can be fixed by the purchasing authority according to their will. It is not fixed by the House of Commons. The authority can deliver their notice to treat any time before the Bill receives the Royal Assent, or any time after, as it

chooses. It can choose the date which is crucial to the value of the property. I say that that is bad practice. We ought to fix a date beyond the reach of manipulations of that sort.
The right hon. Gentleman cavilled with some reason against going so far back as 7th January, 1947. I must confess that I put in the date on the principle of "what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander." It was the date chosen by the right hon. Gentleman himself, because it was the date when he gave notice of his intentions by the printing of this Bill. I do not mind changing the date to the date when I first saw this Amendment printed. The only reason why I have a preference for the earlier date is because this matter has been under such constant consideration in Parliament. I am afraid that I have wearied the Committee by my denunciations of the 1939 price, but I should have thought it common sense that the further back you go, the clearer you are from any sense of speculation on the contents of a Bill printed in Parliament. If there is a puritanical feeling for adhering to the strict logic of the position, I do not mind taking the date on which this Amendment was first printed. I do not mind, so long as it is a date which prevents anyone profiting by knowledge of what is printed in the Bill. That is all I ask on this matter.
With regard to contracts already entered into and, perhaps, completed, I agree that it would be an impossible task to re-examine them all. But that is a matter which could be got over. It is common, when changes in the law take place, to enact simultaneously that it is without prejudice to anything done before the change was made. There is bound to be a certain amount of hardship involved, but I should not have thought it would have taken us beyond our depths in framing legislation to meet it. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), whose speech I listened to with the greatest interest and sympathy, referred to the 1939 price. The real reason for adopting the 1939 price was the absence of any proper standard owing to the insidence of bombardment, in various degrees, in our island. It had one advantage in that it fixed a date. No one in 1944 could do anything about a standard fixed in 1939 to enrich himself one way or the other. Similarly, it is essential not to leave the fixing of this date in the


hands of people who can use it to their advantage in the indefinite period that must elapse between now and the Royal Assent.
The right hon. Gentleman was a little dubious of what the Third Schedule might contain when the Bill reached the Statute Book. That shows a proper appreciation of the hazards which attend the passage of legislation through Parliament, but if he is doubtful of the contents of his Third Schedule, still more doubtful must he be on the date when approval is finally given. To leave a period of uncertainty like this, within which certain people may think it to their advantage to throw in notices to treat, and others may think it to their advantage to abstain until the Bill is passed and thus delay acquisition of the land, and the development required, is bad administration and bad legislation. We ought to fix a date behind which no one can go, and have a clear, untouchable, standard of value which affects all members of the public, whether purchasers or vendors, under this Bill.

Mr. Medland: I want to take great exception to some of the remarks which have just been made by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), because they cast a great slur on the integrity of our local government bodies. We ought to refute the suggestion that there must be a date in this Bill because it would give a local authority the right to determine when they will give notice to treat. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that notice to treat is not determined by a local authority until they have carried out many of the provisions of the previous Act and this Bill. It has sometimes taken nine months before a local authority could get anywhere near a chance to give notice to treat, and to get up in this Committee and say that local authorities could use the date to their advantage is a great insult to them and a slur on the foundation of the good government of this country.

Mr. Manningharn-Buller: The hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) entirely ignores the

possibility that a local authority might retard things so as to obtain an advantage for the purchasers. I am not suggesting any impropriety on the part of any local authority; it is their duty to save the ratepayers as much money as they can. However, I do not rise to answer the hon. Member, who represents some local authorities, but to ask whether the Minister can say something further about acceptance of a date for publication in connection with this new Clause. If he can offer a further explanation, perhaps it will save the time of the Committee.

Mr. Silkin: I would be misleading the Committee if I held out any hope that further consideration of this matter would induce me to take a different view. I have given a great deal of thought to it, and I must say that I was at first attracted to the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But I came to the conclusion that it would be unworkable, for the reasons I have given, and for, perhaps, this other reason; If land is acquired on the basis of the Amendment development values would have to be excluded. That would be very difficult before the passing of the Bill, unless we were going to hold up transactions until we saw which way the Bill went. The right hon. Gentleman may "pull my leg," if I may use that unparliamentary expression, but if there is to be real consideration of this Bill, one must expect that some changes will be made, and one does not know what those changes will be. It would be quite unworkable to try to acquire land now on a new basis when one cannot say what is to happen, and to complete transactions on the basis of the restricted value when we have not in fact got this Bill through the House. For those reasons, while; gladly, for the sake of peace and in order to get on, give the right hon. and learned Member the assurance that I will consider it, I would be misleading him if I were to hold out any hope that the decision would be different.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 99.

Division No. 202]
AYES.
10.2 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Foot, M. M.
Moyle, A


Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)
Forman, J. C.
Nally, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ganley, Mrs, C. S.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Alpass, J. H.
George, Lady M.. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gibbins, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Attewell, H. C.
Gibson, C. W
Oldfield, W. H


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R
Gilzean, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Austin, H. Lewis
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Paget, R. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Ayles, W. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Palmer, A. M F


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Pargiter, G. A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Grey, C. F.
Parker, J.


Baird, J.
Grierson, E.
Parkin, B. T.


Barstow, P. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Barton, C.
Guest, Dr. L, Haden
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Battley, J. R.
Guy, W. H.
Pearson, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Peart, Capt T. F.


Benson, G.
Hale, Leslie
Piratin, P.


Berry, H.
Hall, W. G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Beswick, F.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Price, M. Philips


Blackburn, A. R
Hardy, E. A.
Proctor, W, T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ranger, J.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Rankin, J.


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Herbison, Miss M.
Reeves, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hewitson, Captain M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Rhodes, H.


Bramall, E A.
Hoy, J.
Robens, A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Brown, T J. (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Robertson J. J. (Berwick)


Burden, T. W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Burke, W. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A
Scollan, T.


Byers, Frank
Jay, D. P. T.
Scott-Elliot, W


Callaghan, James
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Segal, Dr. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Chamberlain, R. A
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sharp, Granville


Champion, A. J
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Chater, D.
Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Keenan, W.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Clitherow, Dr. R
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Cobb, F. A.
King, E. M.
Simmons, C. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Coldrick, W.
Kinley, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Collindridge, F
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Collins, V. J.
Lang, G.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Colman, Miss G. M
Lavers, S.
Solley, L. J


Cook, T. F.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Sparks, J. A.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Stamford, W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lever, N. H.
Stephen C.


Corvedale, Viscount
Levy, B. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Crawley, A.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Stress, Dr. B.


Crossman, R. H. S
Lipson, D. L.
Swingler, S.


Daggar, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Sylvester, G. O.


Daines, P.
Lyne, A. W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McAdam, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
McAllister, G.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mack, J. D.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughlon)
Mackay, R. W G. (Hull, N.W.)
Tiffany, S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McLeavy, F.
Titterington, M. F


Deer, G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Tolley, L.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McNeil, Rt. Hon, H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Delargy, H. J
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Diamond, J
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Driberg, T. E. N
Mann, Mrs. J.
Walker, G. H.


Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Durbin, E. F. M.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Warbey, W. N.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Medland, H. M.
Weitzman, D.


Edelman, M.
Messer, F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
West, D. G.


Evans, John (Ogmare)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fairhurst, F.
Mitchison, G. R
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Farthing, W. J
Monslow, W.
Wilkes, L.


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Wise, Major F. J
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)
Woodburn, A
Zilliacus, K.


Williamson, T.
Woods, G. S.



Wills, Mrs. E A
Yates, V. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col. sir W. (Armagh)
Gammons, L. D.
Nutting, Anthony


Amory, D. Heathcote
Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prescott, Stanley


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Ropner, Col. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Howard, Hon. A
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.
Keeling, E. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Kendall, W. D.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Carson, E
Langford-Holt, J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon, O.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Digby, S. W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drewe, C.
Marples, A. E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sullon)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maude, J. C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)



Gage, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Commander Agnew and




Mr. Studholme.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to leave out from "have" to "effect", in line 8.
I move this Amendment in a spirit of inquiry because it is rather hard to discover what is the effect of the words which it is proposed to delete. In Subsection (1) the Clause abolishes the 1939 standard, and in Subsection (2) it refers to a new Schedule (Modifications of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944), and it says that those provisions:
shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect in relation to land compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the commencement of the Act of 1944.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten us on the effect of those words.

Mr. Silkin: I think I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. The purpose of the words which the Amendment seeks to omit is to eliminate the possibility of overlapping between the 60 per cent. supplement under the recent Order under the War Damage Act and the 60 per cent.

supplement under the Town and Country Planning Act. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the point was made in the report of the War Damage Commission, in paragraph 18, that this question of the overlapping would have to be dealt with, and this is the method by which it has been done. It is rather elaborate, but I am advised it is necessary.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am indebted to the Minister for his explanation. I was a little startled to read the words originally. Taken in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the previous Amendment, in which he exposed himself as an opponent of retrospective action, it seemed to me to be rather curious that the next thing he should be asking us to do was to say not only that things had effect, but should be 'deemed always to have had effect, because I do not consider the right hon. Gentleman to be a victim of schizophrenia, or split mind; but I thank him for his explanation, which is entirely to my satisfaction, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation for Compulsory acquisition after the appointed day.)

(1) Any compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land by a government department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the appointed day (not being compensation which falls to be assessed in accordance with Rule (5) of the rules set out in section two of that Act) shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of that Act as modified by the, provisions of this and the three next following sections.

(2) The value of any such interest shall be ascertained on the assumption that planning permission would be granted under Part III of this Act for development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, but would not be so granted for any other development; and where such permission has been granted before the date of the notice to treat for any such other development, then in so far as the development in question has not been carried out at that date, no account shall be taken of any additional value attributable to that permission:

Provided that where at any time before the date of the notice to treat permission for development of the land of any class specified in the said Third Schedule (other than development specified in paragraph r thereof) has been refused or granted subject to conditions, or, having been granted, has been revoked or modified by the imposition of conditions, it shall be assumed for the purposes of the ascertainment of the value of the interest in question that such permission would not be granted, or, as the case may be, would not be granted otherwise than subject to those conditions.

(3) Where the interest is acquired in pursuance of a purchase notice served under section seventeen of this Act, and it is certified by the Minister, on confirming the notice, that any building comprised in the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use, then if the purchase notice was served in consequence of the refusal of permission for development which would have involved the demolition of the whole or substantially the whole of the building, or in consequence of the revocation or modification of such permission, no account shall be taken for the purposes of this section of the value of the building except in so far as the value of any materials therein would exceed the cost of demolition.—[Mr. Silkin.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not think I need take up much time in dealing with this new Clause, the substance of which has already been discussed for some considerable time. It provides for the payment of compensation

on the basis of market value, and it provides for payment being made on the basis of the existing use value of the land.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 12, to leave out from "development" to the end of line 15.
The Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has just moved lays down certain principles for assessing the value of land to be compulsorily acquired after the appointed day. In stating those principles, it prescribes the assumption that planning permission would be granted under Part III of the Bill for development of any Class specified in the Third Schedule of the Bill,
but would not be so granted for any other development.
Then follow the words which we seek to exclude by the Amendment. We do not object to the provisions of the first part of that Subsection to which I have just referred, but the words which we seek to exclude would eliminate from considerations of compensation a planning permission given before the notice to treat. In regard to that, we say that the position is inequitable. I do not know what your intentions, Major Milner, are in regard to the following Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend and others, which proposes in line 15, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where land to which such permission relates is compulsorily acquired under this Section, that permission shall be deemed for the purposes of Sections nineteen and twenty of this Act to have been revoked on the date on which the notice to treat in respect of such land was served.
Perhaps it would be convenient if I were allowed to refer to that because, as the Minister will appreciate, the two matters hang together. We consider that it is inequitable to eliminate the position there specified from the computation of compensation because the granting of permission to develop in itself establishes a development value and, therefore, founds a claim to compensation. At present, with the inclusion of those words, that claim is excluded. Further, in the absence of the words which we propose to insert in the second Amendment, the following unsatisfactory result also arises. Where expenditure has actually been incurred on development for which permission has


been granted in that way, the owner of the land in question is not entitled to compensation for abortive expenditure which is prescribed in Clauses 19 and 20, unless the compulsory acquisition of the land is in itself regarded as constituting revocation of planning permission for the purposes of this Clause. It is for that reason that we propose to import into the Clause the words that figure in the second Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: I am sorry, but I cannot accept either of the two Amendments. In reference to the first, when the Clause provides that in assessing compensation no account should be taken of a planning consent which has not been acted upon, I think that is quite a proper provision to include. The planning consent may have been given a very long time ago. It may be a consent which the local authority will desire to revoke or which would have been revoked within the time permitted. For instance, it might be a planning consent to development in a green belt. One of the first things that the local authority would do would be to revoke a consent of that kind. Yet, if these words were deleted, it would mean that the owner could get the benefit of a planning consent which would be against the public interest. If he did get the benefit of that consent, would he not also, in equity, be liable to pay a development charge even though he had not carried out the development? If the consent is to be treated as if the consent had been acted upon, equally a development charge should be payable in respect of it. The Clause, as it stands, provides that no account should be taken of a consent which has not been acted upon, and there would naturally be no development charge payable.
As regards the second Amendment, the words proposed are not necessary. The fact is that in so far as a volume of expenditure is involved, that can be met, and will be met, in the ordinary way. It is covered by Clause 20, and with the Amendment that has now been accepted by the Committee, any kind of abortive expenditure can be provided for and there is no need for the inclusion of the words which it is proposed to insert. For those reasons, I hope the Committee will not agree to the deletion of the words proposed in this Amendment or to the insertion of the proposed words after line 15.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Do I understand from what the Minister has just said that the words in the second Amendment are redundant, because the land there specified would, in any event, come under Clause 20 in regard to revocation? That is the point which the Amendment seeks to make. If the Minister says the Amendment is redundant and that the principle there sought to be imported into the Bill is already in the Bill, by reason of Clause 20, I agree that there is an end of the Amendment, but I would press the Minister to be a little clearer on that point.

Mr. Silkin: Yes. I think the position is that if the owner has started on the basis of his planning permission—that is what the second Amendment is designed to deal with—then insofar as works have been done, their value will be included in the purchase price insofar as a development charge has been paid, it will be refunded under Clause 66; and insofar as the owner has incurred other abortive expenditure of the kind covered by Clause 20, he will be entitled to claim for the loss. I am not clear whether the Amendment is designed to cover any other forms of expenditure, but the various types of expenditure I have described will be paid. I had difficulty in discovering exactly what the Amendment intended to do.

Amendment negatived.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 33, at the end, to add:
(4) In ascertaining the value of any interest in land designated as land subject to compulsory acquisition it shall be assumed for the purpose of number two of the Rules in Section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, that the land has not been so designated.
I have not by me the text of the Rules referred to, but the effect of them is that the price the land is worth is to be the price that it would fetch in the open market if sold there by a willing seller. These words, since 1919, have defined what we loosely term "market value," and it is Rule 2 which describes the psychological and material surroundings of an open market value. Of course, all compulsory purchases are, in a way, fictitious—there cannot be a willing seller if there is compulsory purchase—but for the purpose of finding the market value, one has to assume a willing seller and


say what the land would fetch in the open market. All the incidences that affect land and value, and what a. willing seller would be likely to take for it, are well known. They have been considered by surveyors and valuers ever since the Act was passed in 1919, but this Bill introduces a new factor which may be supposed to be capable of influencing the mind of the so-called seller. It introduces a new factor into the open market price. That is the effect of the earlier Clauses of the Bill, which introduce the device of designation.
I will not, at this hour of the night, rehash the differences of view which have been expressed frequently both upstairs and here between the Minister and hon. Members on this side of the Committee as to the effect which designation for compulsory purchase of land has upon the fortunes of the landlord and upon the value of the land. The right hon. Gentleman has, with praiseworthy persistence, advocated throughout that this designation was a blessing to the landlord in that it gave him notice of the fact that his land was in jeopardy of being acquired, and that it was better to know the worst as soon as possible, rather than be left in doubt as to its ultimate destination. That argument, I have always thought, would have more force if the designation of the land were the only means permitted to public authorities of acquiring it, but that designation comes on top of all the other statutory provisions which enable land to be compulsorily acquired. So it adds nothing to the certainty of the landlord and, as we on this side think, it increases the jeopardy and the danger to his land.
If the right hon. Gentleman is right, and we are wrong, and designation is a great blessing to the landlord, enriching the value of his assets and really making everybody happier all round, then it would be an act of great self-sacrifice on my part to propose that this great blessing of designation should be disregarded in ascertaining the price. If the right hon. Gentleman is to be consistent in the argument he has so far resolutely advanced—I almost said obstinately, but perhaps "resolutely" would be the kinder word—then he must agree with this Amendment, because it is not, I understand, his intention to add an element to the calculation of the value of land which would undoubtedly inflate its price. As he has told the Com-

mittee that designation of land for compulsory purchase would be such an added advantage, we are willing to accept his argument for once and ask that it be excluded from the terms of the value of land. That is on the supposition that the right hon. Gentleman is right, and I am willing to accept it for the sake of friendly relations and so on. I really think he is wrong, and if it be a fact that the designation of land has an adverse effect upon its selling market value, then I suggest, if the right hon. Gentleman means what he says by a willing seller, he should exclude from the conception of a willing seller the whole idea of designated or doomed land. Whichever side is right on the main theory—whether designation is a curse or a blessing—or on whichever side of the argument we stand, I think both sides can agree that the Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Silkin: I have never resolutely argued that designation adds to the value of land. It is an advantage to an owner to know that his land is likely to be acquired within ten years; that is an advantage, but I have never argued that it had any effect on the value. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be wrong for a local authority to take action which reduced the value of a person's land, and then to acquire it at the reduced value. That would be inequitable, and we should not be parties to such a procedure. Yet, I do not think that would be the case. Nor do I think any such Amendment as this is necessary. I believe that value for the purpose of compulsory purchase is the price which a willing buyer will pay to a seller. That, of course, is a hypothetical sum, which has to be calculated. I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on some points, but in the circumstances, while I am advised that this Amendment is quite unnecessary and that recourse under the Acquisition of Land Act will give the right result, I am willing to look at this again. If any Amendment becomes necessary to achieve the position, I assure the Committee that it will be made at a later stage of the proceedings.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but I must add that I am rather disturbed at his suggestion that the Amendment is unnecessary. This is a matter on, which none of us can be too sure. This acquisition of land is new to our law, and


although I have not the advantage of the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has, I think that the fact that a piece of land has been designated will have an adverse effect on the value of that land. Before the land can be designated, he must be prepared to approve it, and it may be acquired within ten or fifteen years, as the case may be. If the designation is approved, the land will remain in the possession of the owner only for a limited period. I can see no harm in including the words proposed. I, myself, do not believe that by leaving it to chance, the thing which we wish to avoid will, in fact, not occur.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If it is not intended to call the next Amendment on the Order Paper—in line 33, at the end, to add:
(4) The value of an interest in land to which section seventy-four of this Act applies shall be ascertained on the assumption that the acquiring authority would be entitled to carry out the development specified in subsection (1) of that section and that such authority is acquiring the land for the purpose of carrying out that development.
—I wish to take this opportunity to raise the matter, which is of considerable substance and importance. Under Clause 74 of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman sought to give special treatment to land which is colloquially described as "ripe." With regard to that land, there will be no liability to pay a development charge, and there will be no payment by way of compensation out of the £300,000,000 fund. But the "ripe" land within the definition of the Clause is land where the planning Permission is given under this Act, and also land where the development values are wholly or mainly attributable to the prospect of that development at the appointed day, and where a building contract is in force. I have summarised the provisions of Clause 74 for the reason that it is clear that in that Clause, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to single out for special treatment land coming within that category.
What he has not done in this Bill, as yet, is to relate that part of the Bill to the part of the Bill dealing with compulsory acquisition. He is freeing the "ripe" land, in one part, from liability

to development charge and a right to claim compensation, and making no provision for that category of land with regard to compulsory acquisition; because under this new Clause with regard to compulsory acquisition, what is going to happen? The owner of land which is in its true sense "ripe" is only going to obtain, by way of compensation, the value of his interest in that land, less his development rights. That is all he is going to obtain as a right. He will have a claim, which is unlikely to be paid in full, for the difference out of the £300,000,000 fund. That, I apprehend. to be the present position. So one reaches this anomalous situation, that the owner of "ripe" land is really excluded from this Bill so far as development charge is concerned, if he has the good fortune not to be subjected to compulsory acquisition. If, on the other hand, he is subjected to compulsory acquisition, he will get less than his land is now worth, because I do not think anyone suggests that people are going to get 100 per cent. of their claims from this £300,000,000 fund.
I have had brought to my notice during the interval since the Committee stage, a case with which the right hon. Gentleman may be familiar. It concerned a local authority for which he did some valuable work in days gone by. In my opinion, this case illustrates very strongly the force of my contention that, just as in Part VII of the Bill special provision is made for "ripe" land, so also there should be special provision made in the part dealing with compulsory acquisition. In this case, the local authority entered into a most solemn obligation by law. It made a deed whereby it gave permission for the development of a cleared site for industrial purposes The land is absolutely "ripe" for development, and but for the war, would have been developed by now. Now that land, if it is not compulsorily acquired, will not come within Clause 74, because the local authority, notwithstanding the deed, indicate that it is now their intention to zone that area for housing. They may be right in doing that, having regard to the present need. But the effect, of course, of the announcement of their desire now to acquire compulsorily this land, which they had agreed to let the owner develop himself, is going to place a very heavy burden upon the owner of that land. These cases are not likely to be


small in number. I cannot but think that in many cases where land is ripe for development in its true sense, you will find also that the local authority is willing to acquire.
10.45 p.m.
I suggest to the Minister that where land is really ripe it is unfair to say, as he does under the Bill as it stands, that the owners of this land—it may be a charity, it may be people who have invested—shall in fact get less than the land is now worth, ripe as it is for development, because, within Clause 74, it has been selected as land for compulsory acquisition. I do not know what answer the right hon. Gentleman will make on this point. It is a point of substance and importance, and I hope that the Minister even at this late stage will undertake, if he cannot accept our Amendment, at least to make some provision for dealing specially with the compulsory acquisition of land which will fall within Subsection 1 (a) and (b) of Clause 74 and within the planning commission part of that Clause if the local authority does not change its mind as to what permission it would give.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised what appears to be a perfectly valid point, and one into which we shall certainly look with sympathy. There may be cases in which dead ripe land may be acquired but will not be able to share in the £300 million. There are two ways of dealing with that case. One is that the acquiring authority should pay a price which includes the development value of the land and should itself inherit, so to speak, the owners' right to carry out the development free from any development charge. The other is that the acquiring authority should pay a restricted use value only and later on, if it were liable to pay development charge, the owner should have restored to him the right to claim against the £300 million. The hon. and learned Gentleman has adopted the former alternative in the Amendment which has been put down. We need not go into it, but we did not think that the Amendment in the terms in which it was put down was apt to meet even the object which the hon. and learned Member has in view. We shall consider both alternatives and try to put down an Amendment in another place

which will meet the point, in one way or another.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am glad that he recognises that this is a casus omissus in the Bill, not intentional, but due to the complexity of this Measure. I was not aware that' the owner of ripe land compulsorily acquired could not have a claim against the £300 million fund. I would urge the Minister to make provision so that the owner of land which is really ripe, should receive a price which includes the development value rather than have a claim against the £300 million. I thank the Attorney-General for what he said and I shall be glad to hear of the result of his attention to this matter, because as the Bill now stands hardship will be imposed on a landowner in these cases concerning the acquisition of land.

Mr. Walker-Smith: We on this side of the Committee welcome the attitude of mind of the Attorney-General in the consideration of this subject. We are not, of course, here concerned with the particular words of the Amendment, which you, Major Milner, in your discretion have not seen fit to call, but we are discussing this question on the Motion, "That the Clause be added to the Bill." The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he was satisfied that there "might be" a case in which an inequitable result would be arrived at if this Clause remained as at present drafted. With all respect to him, I think those words should be altered. I should like him to substitute for them words to the effect that as the Clause at present stands, there will inevitably be occasions on which an inequitable result will be arrived at. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) referred to compensation but there the Attorney-General rightly said that under Clause 74 (1) the right to compensation out of the global figure under Part V of the Bill is excluded. The right hon. and learned Gentleman lucidly put before the Committee two alternatives as a possible solution of those difficulties. Might I reinforce the argument for the first of these alternatives. We on this side of the Committee—and it is one of the principles on which we approach the whole discussion of the problems raised under this Bill—turn our face against the


enlargement of claims upon that global sum of £300 million compensation. We do not desire in any case to extort concessions by way of larger slices for any particular interest. Therefore, I urge upon the Government when giving this matter further consideration to lean towards the first of the two alternatives rather than the second.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The justification, if any ever existed, for a global sum as a method of compensation lies in the phenomenon of floating values, not ascertainable, to the degree to which development will take place. But where land is ripe for development there is no floating value, because it is settled on the land affected and we are able to give it a proper reckoning.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession.)

Where the notice to treat giving rise to the claim for compensation is served at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and the interest in land in respect of which the compensation is payable carries the right to vacant possession of the land or any part thereof, or the right to obtain such possession at any time before that date, then, unless the land is agricultural property within the meaning of this Section, the value of that interest shall be calculated as if there were derived therefrom a lease of the land, or of that part thereof, as the case may be, for the term, subject to the conditions and at the rent specified in this section.

(2) The term of any such lease as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a term beginning on the date of the notice to treat and ending on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four:

Provided that—
(a) where the interest in question is subject to an actual lease on the date of the service of the notice to treat, the said term shall be deemed to begin on the first date thereafter on which the owner of the said interest would be lawfully entitled to obtain vacant possession of the land; and
(b) where the interest in question is a leasehold interest which is limited to expire at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, the said term shall be deemed to end on the day before the expiration of that interest.

(3) The conditions of any such lease as aforesaid shall be deemed to be conditions by virtue of which the tenant would be liable to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and to bear the cost of repairs and insurance and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain

the land in the state in which it was on the date of the notice to treat, and the rent payable thereunder shall be deemed to be a sum equal to five per cent. of the capital value of the premises, or a sum equal to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the premises, under a lease for the term and subject to the conditions aforesaid, whichever is the less.

(4) In this Section the expression "agricultural property" means agricultural land or agricultural buildings as defined by the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, and includes a house used as a dwelling house by a person who is primarily engaged in carrying out or directing agricultural operations on land in the neighbourhood of the house; and for the purposes of this Section the capital value of any premises shall be deemed to be the value of an unincumbered freehold interest therein calculated in accordance with the provisions of any enactment other than this Section which would apply to the assessment of compensation on a compulsory acquisition thereof by a government department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

(5) For the purposes of this Section, an interest in land shall not be deemed to carry the right to obtain vacant possession of the land or any part thereof if at the time of the service of the notice to treat the land or that part thereof consists of a dwelling house which is subject to the Rent and Mortgages Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939. or any future enactment amending or extending those Acts, and any person other than the person entitled to that interest is for the time being in possession thereof either by virtue of a tenancy or by virtue of the provisions of the said Acts.

(6) Compensation for disturbance in respect of an interest in land the value of which is calculated in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall not be assessed at any greater or less amount than that at which it would have been assessed apart from the provisions of this section.—[Mr. Silkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause has already been discussed in general terms on previous Amendments, and I propose only to refer to four major issues in it. The first is in the case of land on which there is a right to vacant possession. There is assumed to be a notional lease based on the current rent, which expires on 1st January, 1954. The land is subject to this notional lease, either at the current rent or at the rent which represents five per cent. of the market value of the land whichever is the least. We have had a considerable discussion on that and I do not think I need add anything to what has already been said. There are two exceptions to the principle of the notional lease. The first is that agricul-


tural land is not deemed to be subject to any lease and that the compensation for agricultural land will be ordinary market value. The reason for the distinction is that, generally speaking, agricultural land has not risen in price as much as other types of land. That is to say, there is not the same element of scarcity in the price of agricultural land as in that of other land. The other exception is land with property which is subject to the Rent Restrictions Act—although that is not really an exception because there the market value is paid having regard to the fact that there is a restriction of vacant possession. Lastly, in order to ensure that compensation for disturbance is not unduly increased, there is a provision that there should be no increase in the compensation for disturbance as compared with the existing provisions. Those are the main points of the New Clause, and I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 6, after "section", to insert:
or the interest to be acquired is the interest of an owner-occupier of a building within the meaning of this section.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered at the same time the other Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 41, at the end, to insert:
(5) An interest in land consisting of or comprising a building shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be the interest of an owner-occupier of such building if any of the following conditions is satisfied, and not otherwise, that is to say—

(a) if he is in occupation of the building at the time of the service of the notice to treat;
(b) in the case of a building so damaged at that time as not to be fit for occupation, if he was in occupation thereof when the damage occurred;
(c) in the case of a building of which possession has been taken without other title by virtue of any enactment, or by an authority by whom, and in circumstances in which, possession thereof could have been so taken and has not been given up before that time, if he was in occupation thereof when posses. sion was so taken; or
(d) if—

(i) the title under which the building is held at that time is such that he then has the right to enter into occupation thereof or will be in a position to obtain that right within five years from that time, and

(ii) it was at that time his intention, subject to its being possible for him so to do, to enter into occupation of the building within the said five years, or, if it is so damaged as not to be fit for occupation, to cause it to be restored for his occupation or to enter into occupation of premises to be substituted therefor, within the said five years."
This matter has been discussed in general terms both in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier on and in other speeches during the course of the Debate today, and I do not wish to go into it again in any great detail at this time of the night. The Amendment to line 41 merely supplies a definition of what is meant by "an owner-occupier." That is necessary because in this Bill there is no such definition, and indeed no such category of possessor of land is contemplated at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister have justified this Clause upon the argument that there now exists in our community a scarcity of land which has the facility of offering vacant possession upon a change of ownership. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to eliminate the scarcity by imposing upon the land a notional lease of seven years' duration so that though in fact the land does carry with it the right of vacant possession so greatly desired, we are to step in here in this Committee—in the first place—and say, "Though you have the right to give vacant possession yet we shall take that right from you and presume you to be burdened with a lease of seven years' duration."
11.0 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer described this very lightheartedly as a device of valuation, but surely it is far more than that? It is saying that an unburdened estate is burdened when in fact it is not. That may be a valuation device, but it is a device which starts by saying something which is not true about the estate we are purporting to value. I do not propose tonight to widen the discussion to cover the possible excision of this notional idea, but to put in a plea for a particular class-of landowner, and that is the owner-occupier. He is defined in this Amendment as a person who not only has possession of the land, but also owns it. It is true that owner-occupiers of agricultural land are already excluded from these notional leases, but I can foresee many others who ought to be excluded


and are not. To such a man, his wealth consists not in the value of the site, but in the fact that on the site he carries on his business.
Take again the case of the owner of a small factory. He is the owner-occupier of the premises, and the value to him of the site is not its investment value, but its value as a base for his operations—the ground upon which he stands to make his living. If such a man is dispossessed by a public authority, he has to go out into the world and try to get another site, where he will be confronted with the scarcity value and the difficulty of getting vacant possession. In other words, what is being proposed in this Clause is to invoke on behalf of the public authority the existence of a scarcity of vacant possession, and to deny to the man who is being dispossessed the existence of any such scarcity when he wishes to recoup himself.
I have always believed that the only sure way through this jungle of land legislation is to look how it affects the citizen affected. Though the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman can put up a great plea here on the difficulty of getting vacant possession, it is no answer to the man who says "I had vacant possession, but you took it from me by Act of Parliament. You turned me into the world where vacant possession is hard to come by." From the public point of view, if there are owner-occupiers—and I am sure there are many—who will be disturbed by the public taking away their land, we had far better pay them the full scarcity value of the vacant possession they are able to convey, so that they shall have enough to be able to go into the world and get possession of some other land. Otherwise you are not only taking the man's land, but denying him the opportunity of restarting his business. To meet that is, shortly, the purpose behind the Amendment.
It is curious to reflect how things run more or less in full circle. When we had discussions, in 1944, on this business of the 1939 price for land, there was a great difference of opinion between the two sides— and it was not confined to party lines— when we thought the best compromise we could come to was to pin down the investor owner to the 1939 value. We recognised in that the peculiar position

of the owner-occupier. In other words, we recognised the fact, to which I am now drawing attention, that the occupation of his land was much more than his investment. The years have in no way lessened my affection for the owner-occupier, whom I regard as a very stable member of society, and one to be encouraged. Although he is generally a small man, it is all the more necessary for us to be careful that we do not adversely affect his interests. It is wrong that if you take land from him for public purposes you should give him less than he would have to pay outside to reinstate himself.

Mr. Silkin: Perhaps it would be useful if I intervened in the discussion now, although I do not suppose that it will have the effect of terminating the proceedings on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite commented on the fact that feeling on the question of the owner occupier had, apparently, turned full circle, and that the owner occupier was to get less generous treatment than he was getting under the 1944 Act. The right hon. Gentleman posed as the friend of the owner-occupier, thereby implying that we, presumably, were not his friends. As a matter of fact, we are being more generous to the owner-occupier, under this Bill, than the right hon. Gentleman was, even in relation to the investor. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) explained that the value of a property, subject to a lease, was no greater today than it was in 1939, or not substantially greater. Paying the owner-occupier market value, he said, was not really giving him substantially more than 1939 value. The hon. Member made a calculation, from which it appeared that the owner-occupier would get £833 as against £800, which, he thought, was about right. The investor, he said, was not going to get very fat out of being paid market value.
On the other hand, the owner-occupier, even when his land is subject to a notional lease, will get a very substantial benefit over and above the 1939 value, even with the addition of 60 per cent. The benefit is really substantial. Indeed, on the hon. Member's calculation, he can get five-sixths of the full market value, which is not bad. What is the case for not paying the full amount? Why not give the owner-occupier the whole amount, to enable him to buy other premises? There are several reasons. We have to consider,


not only the owner-occupier, but the public as well. After all, it is the community that pays. It has always seemed to me to be inequitable that the community should be called upon to pay these highly inflated values for vacant possession. After all, the scarcity of housing is one of the consequences of the war. Apart from the war, there would not have been this tremendous scarcity and these high values for vacant possession. Before the war, we were gradually getting over the scarcity of housing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear,"] We were. What is the comment of hon. Members on that? Would they like to comment on that statement?

Captain Crookshank: It is perfectly true.

Mr. Silkin: Then we are in agreement. We were gradually getting over the shortage of housing, and, therefore, the element of scarcity value in respect of vacant possession was very small. The war intervened, and as a result of the destruction of large numbers of houses, the impossibility of building, the increase in the number of separate families, and various other causes, a great shortage of housing has arisen, and consequently the scarcity value is very high. That is a factor for which the community is not responsible. It is something which arises as a result of the war in very much the same way as in the case of a person whose property has been damaged by enemy action. Nobody has suggested that you should pay an owner whose property has been destroyed by enemy action full market value of his property. Only a very short time ago the House accepted without dissent—without even a dissenting voice—the proposition that the value payments should be 45 per cent. above the 1939 value, and that is what a person whose property has been destroyed by enemy action gets. I think there was a general recognition that, as between the individual and the community, this was reasonable justice, and I submit that it is reasonable justice in the case where the community requires for public purposes to purchase a property which could be sold subject to vacant possession to pay something less than the full market value, including the high amounts that are due to scarcity value. This measurement at least is admittedly a compromise. It is something more than the ordinary invest-

ment value and something less than the full market value.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to hard cases. Of course, one can always make a great deal of play by producing hard cases, and hon. Members always produce the small business man and the small owner-occupier as the hard cases; but, in fact, if the community paid in every case full market value, including scarcity, they would be paying considerably more than the occasion called for in a great many cases. There are a great many people who are not going to acquire other property. Only a limited number of people will necessarily go into the market and acquire other property. People adjust themselves, people make other arrangements, but they do not go into the market and buy other property. Those people who do not will have been getting more than the needs of the case merit and more than that to which they are strictly entitled. Moreover, there is an obligation contained in the Bill itself to provide people in residential property with other accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements. People living in dwelling houses which are being acquired for public purposes have an absolute right to be provided with other accommodation, and it would be wrong to pay these people inflated values for their property and, at the same time, provide them with other accommodation suitable for their reasonable requirements.
11.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the business man. Even in those cases there is an obligation in the Bill to provide such people with other accommodation wherever practicable—[Interruption.]— "So far as is practicable," really does mean something. It means that, except n cases where it is not practicable, you lave to provide alternative accommodation. There will be an obligation, and have always contended in answer to ion. Members opposite, that "so far as practicable" really has a significance, and that it was only in cases where it vas physically impossible, or undesirable from an amenity point of view to provide other accommodation, that it would not be done. In the vast majority of cases it will be practicable to provide alternative accommodation, so that now we have the case of the dwelling-house, where there s an absolute obligation to offer other accommodation and where in the majority


of cases it will be practicable to provide it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Could the right hon. Gentleman say to which Clause he refers? He says there is an obligation to rehouse the occupants of dwelling-houses and businesses so far as is practicable, but I cannot recollect any provision in this Measure, although there was provision in the 1944 Act.

Mr. Silkin: The 1944 Act has been attracted to this Bill.

Mr. Molson: My recollection is, that the 1944 Act is not attracted, with regard to that particular provision. The argument on the Committee stage was that it was possible in the case of the redevelopment of the small area, but would not be possible in the case of the large area.

Mr. Silkin: It is the case that there is an absolute Obligation to provide other accommodation in respect of houses.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If it would assist the right hon. Gentleman, what he seeks is in Clause 42, which attracts Sections 19 to 30 of the 1944 Act, and it is, of course, Section 30 of the 1944 Act which provides for re-accommodation where practicable, on the lines to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but that applies only to residential property, and does not apply to businesses.

Mr. Silkin: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot refer to it at the moment, but I will do so. We will be meeting again, and I think I can then satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that that is the case. But the substance of my contention is that a large number of people, at any rate, will be provided with alternative accommodation, and it will be inequitable and unfair to the community that they should have their accommodation provided and also get compensation for their existing accommodation at the present-day inflated values due to vacant possession. Admittedly there is a residuum of cases where other accommodation cannot be provided, and there will be a number of cases where the persons do not desire to have other accommodation provided for them. Even of these, there will be a number who will not desire to acquire other accommodation, and you will have left a limited number of people for whom other accom-

modation will not be provided, and who will have to go into the market to acquire other property. But I submit that number will be very small indeed in relation to the total number.
As regards this, one can say that they are being treated even more favourably than if their property had been destroyed by enemy action. Apart from that, it would be quite wrong to pay a large number of people more than is justified, at the expense of the taxpayer. For those reasons, I feel that the case for the notional lease has been made out, and, while I have every sympathy with the very small number who may be adversely affected, I think it would be wrong to impose an unduly heavy burden on the community where this treatment would not be justified.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in moving this new Clause, has moved what will prove to be a great blemish on the general scheme which he is substituting for the 1939 basis. In the first place, in an Act which, in most of its provisions, is designed to be a permanent contribution to our planning law, he has inserted a temporary Clause which is continuing a practice established by a certain part of the Act of 1944. The Act of that year applied an artificial price on compulsory acquisition for the next five years. In an exactly similar way, this Clause provides an artificial price where the notice to treat is served before 1st January, 1954.
I have listened carefully to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman have said in defence of this temporary provision, and I do not think that they have given any sufficient defence of it. The Minister has said that it would be wrong that the community should pay an unduly large price. Of course, I agree. The whole of the Committee will agree, but the question is, what is an unduly large price? The excuse and defence of the compensation under the 1944 Act was that there was, at that time, because of enemy action which was continuing, no market price to which to appeal. That was the only justification for the reference to the last date when there was a stable market, which was in 1939.
The general scheme of the Government is based on the fact that it is once more possible to refer to market values. But


then the Government puts in this exception. What they are really doing is not saying that there is no market in houses with vacant possession, but saying that they do not like the prices which that market gives, and they would like a scheme by which they could be lowered. What is the justification for this very artificial method of lowering prices, and what is the justice of lowering them? The right hon. Gentleman said these prices were inflated as a result of the war, and the consequent scarcity. Suppose they are. The same applies to motor-cars. Let us suppose that the Government decided compulsorily to acquire a motor-car. They would not say, "We will give you much less than the market value because the war has inflated the price." If we say that such a sum is the market value, that is the value of which we are depriving the legal owner; therefore, if we can ascertain the fair market value, we give him that. Now in exactly the same way, there is a much more real market for determining in the ordinary way what is the value of a house with vacant possession than there is for ascertaining the value of a house subject to a notional lease.
The effect of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is, first of all, quite unnecessarily, to put a blemish on his Bill by introducing what is, admittedly a temporary provision. Secondly, the temporary provision is highly artificial; and thirdly, it admittedly causes hardship in some cases, though the Minister thinks they may not be so many as we suppose. He is, I think, wrong in thinking that we should only be troubled about the hard cases. We ought to be troubled wherever a man has suffered an injustice. I can understand the Communist thesis that you should not give a certain class of the community any compensation at all. That, though I think it entirely wrong, is, at least, a contention which can be put forward clearly, and presumably on Communist principles can be defended. What I find so very difficult to understand is the right hon. Gentleman's contention that we should give compensation, but that compensation should only be five-sixths of what the market says is fair. What is the basis of that? No basis has yet been suggested, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not know how this thing will work out, but there are enormous advantages

in having your compensation law, and the rest of the Bill, as simple as it can be made, and not as complicated. Market value for the owner-occupier, without exception, is something which everyone can understand, and which would generally be considered fair. To deny market value in the case of vacant possession, when the owner-occupier will, as a result, be deprived of what may be the basis of his living, and in some cases at any rate will be unable to find anything equivalent for the compensation he is given, seems to me to be obviously unfair and obviously inequitable. I cannot imagine what public service the Minister thinks it will serve,

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Molson: The argument which I am going to put to the Minister is not the argument put with so much force and eloquence by my hon. and learned Friend, but it is, nevertheless, addressed to this particular Amendment. In regard to the 1944 Act, an hon. Friend of mine and I had a good deal to do with extending the scope of the definition of the owner-occupier, and I hope, and believe, that it is the intention of the present Government to continue to apply that general principle in the matter of compensation. I had nothing to do with the drafting of this Amendment. Indeed, I was abroad at the time it was drafted. Therefore, I brought a completely independent mind to the consideration of the Amendment. I quite understand the point of view of the Government in introducing this idea of a notional lease. I think that in cases where property is going to be permanently acquired for the State it would be unreasonable or unjust that two properties identical in value should be acquired at entirely different values, according to whether there happened to be vacant possession or not. Therefore, I accept the general principle of this Clause that in determining the rate of compensation—purchase price is a more accurate way of putting it—where there is compulsory acquisition, in ordinary cases, the existence of vacant possession or otherwise should not be allowed to affect the price at which that property is acquired.
This Amendment has been drafted in order to meet only the case of the owner-occupier and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning did not do himself justice when he argued that although there might be a certain number of hard cases and in-


justices there would not be a great many of them. If the State or any local authority decides to acquire property from somebody who owns and occupies that property, it seems to me to be only fair and equitable that the State shall pay not only the permanent value of that property, but shall also make some fair compensation for the disturbance that is occasioned by that compulsory acquisition. This Amendment as I say is directed only to cases of the owner-occupier and, therefore, the price that should be paid must take into account the incidence of ownership-occupation. I shall be prepared to accept this quite artificial idea of the notional leasehold if it were to prevent owners obtaining quite different prices for their property according to whether there was vacant possession or not. But this Amendment has been drafted in order to meet that point, the legitimate point, in my view, of the Government that there shall be compensation for the disturbance that is caused. Now, the right hon. Gentleman surely is not justified in saying that we cannot legislate to deal with individual cases. If there is a disturbance to somebody who owns property and who occupies it then, surely, there is nothing unreasonable in saying that the State if it turns him out of property which he owns, which he is occupying and using, shall pay him compensation to enable him to set up in business again in another property?
I have never seen the right hon. Gentleman so embarrassed in replying to any Amendment before, and I ask him to consider this matter again. I think that the whole of his argument was directed to this point, that it was not right that the price to be paid by the State for acquiring property should depend upon the existence of vacant possession. That is not the gist of this Amendment as I see it. That is not in dispute. The Amendment deals only with the case of the owner-occupier and surely a person who is occupying property and is turned out of his property by the Government is entitled to such additional compensation as will enable him to set himself up in business again. If the right hon. Gentleman says—and, with all respect, I ask who is he to judge the issue—that in the vast majority of cases this proviso is not going to create injustice I reply that

that is not the way in which the British. House of Commons should deal with this matter. We have made it perfectly plain that this Amendment deals fairly with the owner of property, and is directed to making fair compensation to those who are occupying property and using it for their own substance.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman put forward three arguments which I cannot accept and which I sincerely hope the Committee will not accept. First, he said that only a small number of people would be adversely affected. I do not think it will be a small number of people. It is much more likely to be a considerable number, but even supposing it were a small number, are we to do an injustice, merely because not many people are going to be affected by it? Surely that argument could be used both ways. If only a small number of people will be affected, why not prevent any injustice at all, since it is not going to cost so much money? The second argument that I cannot accept is that which puts war damage on the same basis as acquisition by a local authority. If I understood the point aright, the right hon. Gentleman said if a man's property were damaged by bombing, he was only entitled to receive a certain amount of compensation. Surely we are not going to drag this Bill down to the level of bombing by the Luftwaffe. There is a difference between the man whose house has been knocked down by the hazards of war, and one whose house is knocked down by the machinations of local authorities. I think that that argument is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Bill which he is piloting through the Committee.
The third argument he used was that a number of people who were going to be dispossessed, might not need another house, but if they did need accommodation, he would do his best to find it for them. It is all very well to say that, but what is to happen? Here we have people who have bought houses for themselves and lived in those houses for a number of years. Along comes the local authority and pushes them out. What do they get in place of their own house? Half of a requisitioned house. t is accommodation in the literal sense of the word, but it is not the equivalent of what has been taken from them. The least that we can do in such circumstances is


what has been done for a long period of years, by this House when a Government Department or a local authority takes away somebody's possessions whether it be a house or anything else— to give what is the equivalent of that which was taken away.

Mr. Digby: At first sight it would appear that there is something to be said for the new Clause because it is clear that in the majority of cases where land is acquired compulsorily, the owner will not, in fact, have had the vacant possession of that land. But it seems to me that in setting up these distinctions we are going to get into difficulties. It was made clear earlier in this discussion that owners of business premises would have no right to obtain other business premises equivalent to those which they had lost and from which they could continue their businesses. The Minister of Town and Country Planning was at pains to emphasise the importance of the fact that this land was to be acquired by the community, and he gave that as a reason for saying that it should pay something less than the full market value. It seemed to me that he should have pointed out that it is not only a question of the community in the sense of Government Departments and local authorities. We are also dealing here with new State trading undertakings which will, in some cases, be in competition with other traders affected by this particular Clause.
If we take the case of the Transport Bill which we were discussing recently, this provision for compensation will apply under Clause 8 of the Bill. Of course, there are a number of owner-occupiers in the road haulage industry who will be in direct competition with the new State undertaking. If the State undertaking acquires under these powers it will do so without having to pay for vacant possession. The road haulier who has been dispossessed will then have to go into the open market, where he will be obliged to pay what he received in compensation and, in addition, will have to pay for vacant possession. In other words, he will be penalised as against his competitors.
Hon. Members opposite are often at pains to assert that they want fair competition in these matters. This is only one illustration of the way in which competition would be most unfair. There

is no doubt at all that many owner-occupiers in businesses, whether they are in competition with State enterprises or not will be unduly penalised if they have to go out into the open market. One thing is quite certain: after they have received their compensation no property in the open market' will be any use to them unless they also obtain vacant possession. They will have to pay for that element of vacant possession as well and will be placed in a most unfair position.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I feel that this issue is a narrow one, under the Amendment which we are arguing now, but at the same time it is a deep one which raises a great personal and human issue in this question of owner-occupiers and the rate at which they shall be compensated if their property is acquired. With his characteristic felicity of phrase, my right hon. Friend said a little earlier in the consideration of this Amendment that when he was seeking his way through the jungle of our land laws he took as his guide the way in which the individual citizen is affected. Here is a case in which the individual citizen is affected very markedly in his life, and on a large scale. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has suggested—and I think the argument is unworthy of him—that if injustice is being done, it is being done only on a small scale and therefore does not matter very much, and further that those who are suffering this injustice must remember that we are living in a hard world. That, I thought, was an argument as unsympathetic as it was unfounded.
In fact, the number of people who may be affected in practice by this Clause is very substantial. The right hon. Gentleman attacked that part of the problem. by suggesting that very few of those who were dispossessed in this way would come into the market to seek alternative, accommodation, but he was not good enough to go on and elaborate that argument by explaining just how otherwise they were to be accommodated. It did, it is true, pray in aid the provisions of a Section of the 1944 Act, the exact number of which he had temporarily forgotten. It is, in fact, Section 30, which says:
Where the carrying out of redevelopment of land acquired or appropriated by a local planning or highway authority for the purposes of this Part of the Act will involve the displacement of persons residing in premises thereon it shall be the duty of the authority in so far as there is no other residential


accommodation available on reasonable terms to secure the provision of such accommodation in advance of the displacements from time to time becoming necessary as the redevelopment proceeds.
I do not know whether the words "available on reasonable terms" have yet received any judicial interpretation in the courts. I shall be interested to hear from the Attorney-General whether they have yet secured the advantage of judicial interpretation, whatever the interpretation may be. I do not think it could for one moment be admitted that the words of the Section in any way solve the problem of large-scale dispossessions of owner-occupiers. There will always be a substantial number who are displaced from their residential premises, who will have to go into the open market to seek alternative accommodation, and in addition to the large category of residential owner-occupiers, there are the people in business premises. I have a recollection of moving an Amendment, some 12 months ago, to include in the Acquisition of Land Act, a provision to extend to owners of business the advantages of re-accommodation prescribed for residential owner-occupiers under Section 30 of the 1944 Act. Unfortunately, that is not now law, because the Whips were put on against my Amendment.
Therefore, we have these two substantial bodies of persons in whom we on this side are interested, the residential owner-occupier who will not be found accommodation under the 1944 Act, and the small businessman whose land is taken away under compulsory acquisition. The right hon. Gentleman has said that they should be content with something less than market value, but he put forward no valid argument why that should be so, other than the fact that there was a shortage of housing accommodation and that in any case it was a hard and difficult world. I agree with the two propositions, that there is a great shortage of housing accommodation which will continue for some time, and that it is a hard world. But these are people who have already enjoyed the benefits of housing accommodation who are being displaced, not because of an act of God or any act of the enemy, but because of compulsory acquisition of land carried out in the name of the community. If that is so, it is wrong that they should be penalised and paid less than the market value. The Committee

I think will agree that the Minister, when he addressed himself to the considerations advanced on this Amendment, fell well below his usual standard of reasonableness. I hope we can look forward to a more constructive and helpful reply from the Attorney-General, and that he will show that he appreciates the great human problem raised by this Amendment.

Mr. McAllister: The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) usually impresses the Committee with his wisdom and moderation. He accused the Minister of falling short, but the hon. Member himself has certainly fallen short of his usual standards of morality. There is a moral question involved here, which seems to have escaped entirely, not only the hon. Member, but the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). The Committee should be grateful to the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), who introduced a note of realism into the Debate by giving certain comparative cases, with actual figures. One case he took was that of a house which, before the war, was worth £800, and was now worth, to the owner-occupier, in the open market, £2,000. Running right through the arguments from the Opposition benches was the suggestion that 2,000 for an £800 house was reasonable, fair, and moral—

Mr. Walker-Smith: No.

Mr. McAllister: Indeed hon. Members opposite have been arguing entirely for the market price. In that, they differ entirely from Members on this side of the Committee, because we regard £2,000 for an £800 house as an outrage—

Mr. Molson: Does the hon. Member mean to say that if the State compulsorily acquired a house from an owner-occupier, it should pay to him a price for it which is not sufficient to enable him to buy another house, in which to reside?

Mr. McAllister: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue, I will meet that precise point. There is only one justification for that price, and that is that a man paying another man £2,000 for an £800 house, knows that in the present conditions of housing scarcity, the man who receives the £2,000 will have to pay that sum to get equivalent accommodation. That is the only justification for the transaction. While we should like to see some control over price, and some relation to the actual


construction value and a price paid in the first place, it is impossible without creating the likelihood of a black market on an enormous scale. We are not proposing merely to deny the right of a man to get £2,000 value. The hon. Member for Hertford said, quite rightly, that this Bill attracts Sections 19 to 30 of the 1944 Act. Clause 30 (1) lays down an absolute obligation and duty on the Minister to provide the person whose house is being acquired with alternative accommodation which is suitable and reasonable to his needs. If hon. Members opposite accept that as the fact, they are left with only one slight argument, that it does not apply to business premises. Section 19 (6) of the 1944 Act lays the obligation, not quite so strong, on the Minister to find alternative accommodation even in respect of business premises.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the hon. Member suggest that Section 30 of the 1944 Act is applicable to every case of compulsory acquisition? It applies to

Division No. 203.]
AYES.
[11 57 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Nutting, Anthony


Amory, D. Heathcote
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Prescott, Stanley


Baldwin, A. E.
Gage, C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Gammons, L. D.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V H.
Grimston, R. V
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bower, N.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ropner, Col. L.


Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Smithers, Sir W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hollis, M. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Keeling, E. H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Byers, Frank
Kendall, W. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Carson, E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Teeling, William


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Vane, W. M. F.


Digby, S. W.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drewe, C.
Maude, J. C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Molson, A. H. E.



Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Erroll, F. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Berry, H.
Champion, A. J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Beswick, F.
Clitherow, Dr. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Bing, G. H. C.
Cobb, F. A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Blackburn, A. R.
Cocks, F. S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blenkinsop, A.
Collindridge, F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Blyton, W. R.
Collins, V. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Colman, Miss C. M


Awbery, S. S.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Comyns, Dr. L.


Ayles, W. H.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Cook, T. F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Bramall, E. A.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)


Baird, J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Barton, C.
Burke, W. A.
Crawley, A.


Bechervaise, A. E
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Crossman, R. H. S


Belcher, J. W.
Callaghan, James
Deggar, G.


Benson, G
Chamberlain, R. A.
Daines, P.

acquisition, in certain cases, by local authorities or highway authorities, but this Clause applies among other cases to acquisition by Government Departments, to which Section 30 of the 1944 Act has no application at all.

Mr. McAllister: I would certainly say that the Clause applies to the vast majority of cases under consideration, but Clause 19 (6) applies to business premises. Here the point made by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) is completely met. We are not saying, "You will get £2,000"; we are saying "You will get reasonable and fair compensation, and at the same time we will, as far as is practicable, provide you with alternative accommodation." For the Government to accept the Amendment would be to put a premium on inflation.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 192.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.
Pearson, A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Piratin, P.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Janner, B.
Popplewell, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jay, D. P. T.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Deer, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Price, M. Philips


Delargy, H. J
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pritt, D. N.


Diamond, J
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Ranger, J.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rankin, J.


Donovan, T.

Rhodes, H.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Keenan, W.
Robens, A.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Durbin, E. F. M.
King, E. M.
Royle, C.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Sharp, Granville


Edelman, M.
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. [...]elens)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Kirby, B. V
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lang, G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lavers, S
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fairhurst, F.
Lever, N. H.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Farthing, W. J.
Levy, B. W.
Solley, L. J.


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Field, Capt. W. J
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Foot, M. M.
Lyne, A. W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Forman, J. C.
McAllister, G.
Swingler, S.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McGhee, H. G
Sylvester, G. O.


Gibbins, J.
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gibson, C. W
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Gilzean, A.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McLeavy, F.
Thorneycrott, Harry (Clayton)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Tiffany, S.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Grierson, E.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Walkden, E.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Weitzman, D


Guy, W. H.
Medland, H. M.
West, D. G.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mellish, R. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Hale, Leslie
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wing, Col. G. E.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Wilkes, L.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.
Williamson, T.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Moyle, A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nally, W.
Wilson, J. H.


Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wise, Major F. J.


Hewitson, Captain M.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Woods, G. S.


Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Zilliacus, K.


Holman, P.
Noel-Buxton, Lady



Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hoy, J.
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Palmer, A. M F
Simmons.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.

Clause added to the Bill.

It being after Twelve o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Stafford, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Hailsham, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Lydd, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Cheltenham, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Cambridge, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Bristol, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

COTTON INDUSTRY

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move,
That the Control of the Cotton Industry (No. 78) Order, 1947 (S.R. &amp; 0. 1947. No. 480), dated 17th March, 1947. a copy of which was presented on 24th March, be annulled.
I propose, with permission, to discuss at the same time the two other Motions on the Order Paper relating to the Control of the Cotton Industry (No. 9) Order, and the Control of the Cotton Industry (No. 80) Order. The purpose of the first Order is to enable a producer of yarn, who sells what is termed "controlled yarn destined for export" to receive a price above the "domestic controlled price." On the face of it, such an Order is undoubtedly sound, because it enables the producer to receive a higher price which formerly went to the merchant. This Order, and the related Orders, enable some of the price differential to be passed on to the producer. However desirable this may seem to be on the face of it, there are consequences which are not so desirable, and the reason for putting down this Prayer is to seek assurance on how the Orders will be implemented, and also an assurance that no hardship will be caused.
The Orders make a price differential between home and exported yarn. In the past, it has not mattered to the spinner where the yarn went, because he got the same price. However, now that export allocations are made, those firms producing yarn for the export market will have an advantage over those producing yarns solely for the domestic trade. The matter is not quite so simple as it would appear. Most firms have an export allocation, while the majority of the output is destined for the home trade. With the appearance of these Orders, there will be a desire on the part of spinners to obtain a revision of their allocations for export. There will thus be something of a scramble for export allocations so that the higher prices for yarn for export can be obtained by the spinners.
I should like to hear how the Minister intends to obviate this scramble, for. certain signs have already been given out, showing what is in the Minister's mind in this matter. For example, the Cotton Control recently sent a circular letter to all spinners asking for a return of all yarns exported in the years 1937, 1938 and 1939. The letter which accompanied this request

suggested that yarn exports in the future will be, if I may quote the actual words, "rather free". Naturally, the industry is anxious to know what groups and types of yarn are going to be made rather freer under the terms of these Orders, because a great deal depends on which yarns are to be exported.
An interesting point arises from the request for these returns. They are being sought solely from spinners. Merchants are not being asked what they exported in the basic years. The effect of this is that those spinners who knew where their yarns went in the years 1937, 1938, and 1939, score an advantage over those spinners who sold direct to merchants without knowing the exact destination of their yarns. They are mostly the smaller spinners, whose book-keeping was simple, and who relied upon merchants to secure the ultimate sale of their yarns. I, again, ask for assurances and explanations from the Minister on this matter of the allocations to spinners. For it seems to me that —probably without any intention that it should be so—an unfair allocation may be adopted on the basis of the returns of those spinners who knew what they were exporting in 1937, 1938, and 1939. At least, the merchants ought to be consulted as well, though I am not in any way, in this matter, pleading the case of the merchants, but rather for fairness to the spinners in the implementation of these Orders.
Incidentally, the performances of 1937, 1938, and 1939 relate to a period which is now very long ago, and favour the large combines with complicated records, rather than the small man. These Orders have lain on the Table for a number of days. In fact, I think that today is the last day upon which they could be prayed against. The appearance of the Orders has naturally led to some enthusiasm on the part of the spinners, the idea being that they would be able to increase their export of yarns, of several types of which there is already a known surplus. They have formed the idea that yarn exports are going to be encouraged, and it would be interesting to learn from the Minister to what extent it is his intention to encourage the export of yarns, as indicated by these Orders. There is undoubtedly, at the present time, a certain surplus of fine yarns in this country, and as the industry has tended to go to finer counts, it would seem logical, of course, that only


the finer yarns should be exported. There is, of course, in any case a tendency in the industry to spin the finer counts. The work is lighter and the conditions are better. It might be that we would not want to stimulate a movement which is already operating within the industry perhaps rather faster than it ought to be operating. It would be interesting to know whether it is intended, under the Orders, to restrict the export of fine yarns, and not to cover the whole range of yarns which is at present being spun.
The operation of the Orders is already proving somewhat peculiar. I have before me the case of a spinner who had a surplus of fine yarn and who, encouraged by these Orders, was able to find a buyer for the yarn in Switzerland. He applied to the Cotton Control for the necessary licence to export, and his application was turned down. No reason for this was given, and it was obvious that he would not have gone to the trouble and expense of finding a buyer in Switzerland if he had been able to find a buyer in England. Here we have a group of Orders designed to encourage the export trade in surplus yarns, but the administrative machinery is operating in exactly the opposite direction. It does not seem logical to issue Orders if it is not intended also, by the Cotton Control, to issue the necessary export licences. The point is that the machinery is not functioning in accordance with the intentions of the Minister, unless his intentions are different from what, on the face of it, they would seem to be.
There is also the question of what is the price differential established by these Orders, between yarn for home use and yarn for export. They established that price differential without stating exactly, what the differential is. The Order says that the yarn may be sold at a price
exceeding the price for that yarn determined in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraphs.
Does that mean that the whole of the price differential is to be passed on to the producer? It does not say that the full price may be passed on, but only "a price." As certain licences have to be obtained from the Cotton Board, it would be reassuring to know whether the Cotton Board intend to limit the extent of the price differential, or whether the spinner is to get the whole of it.
There is the final point that many of these yarn surpluses arise through unbalance in the cotton industry. Warp yarns were recently held up by the fuel shortage, while weft yarns were produced in relatively greater abundance. It seems unfortunate that a state of unbalance should be permitted. It would be far better to take the necessary steps to redress the balance and so avoid having these yarn surpluses. In addition to that unbalance, there is also the bottleneck of doubling. If doubling capacity could be increased some of the fine yarns at present surplus could be used in this country, but it seems to be Government policy to export them. It is questionable, in those circumstances, whether these Orders are wise. We shall see when the Minister replies whether there is a satisfactory explanation for them.

12.18 a.m.

Sir John Barlow: I beg to second the Motion.
There are a few questions which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has pointed out that the spinners only are being asked for returns of exports for the years 1937–8–9. Those are very old figures now, and it is not very advantageous that the present export licences should be based upon orders of nearly ten years ago. Merchants have not been asked for any returns whatsoever. Large spinners had their own merchanting sections abroad can handle this new business, but the small businessmen who ordinarily sold to merchants, not knowing whether the yarn was to be used at home or abroad, and never knowing, if it was going abroad, to what country it was going—they have not the slightest idea whether they qualify for export at all. It would be most unfair that these small spinners should be penalised.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Stanley Prescott: On a point of Order. Is it permissible to draw attention to the fact that the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) had only entered the House immediately before calling a Count?

Mr. Speaker: That is perfectly in Order.

12.30 a.m.

Sir J. Barlow: I was pointing out that under these new regulations the merchants had not been called upon to furnish the figures of exports during the three foundation years. Very often merchants were doing far more valuable export business than the spinners were at the time, and merchants had the knowledge and experience which were necessary to carry on the export of yarn for the small spinners. If the small spinners are allowed an allocation at all it will be something, although they will be sorely put to it to know what the merchants themselves will send abroad. I, therefore, suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should carefully consider the advantage of asking the merchants for a return of their exports in the three basic years. By adding those to the returns of the spinners we shall get a real picture of the export business during that period and it will give a basis for the allocations which the Board of Trade are to make in the near future.
There are two other points about which I should like to question the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, it is of the utmost importance to get as much export as we possibly can, provided we cannot use the yarn in this country. Much of this yarn used to go forward in a highly manufactured way. It might be bleached or wound a particular way for a particular market, and very often only the merchants knew what was the complete content of the exports. That is another reason for encouraging the merchants to go into this. In other words, it is of vital importance to have exports of all kinds as well as to get as high a content as possible in the value of the export. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will pay attention to that when making arrangements for these exports. When this Order comes into operation it seems obvious that there will be a great urge to produce a. superfluity of finer yarns, so that the spinners can get the higher prices for export. That may have an unfortunate consequence in the industry and may upset the balance, more than it is upset at present. Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the advisability of having a pool for the excess of the export profits of the finer counts which would be divided over the spinning industry as a whole? That would tend to keep the balance of yarns much more satisfactory and stationary than would be

achieved by letting the surplus high quality yarns go for export as suggested at present.

Mr. Rhodes: That is not so under the Order. It applies to all ranges of yarns and not merely to the finer qualities.

Sir J. Barlow: The Order seeks to export all the finer yarns because there is a surplus of some of those yarns at present.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Member who moved this Prayer called attention to one factor which really does exist. He said there is a superfluity of finer yarns. How is the hon. Gentleman going to upset the balance of the cotton industry in order to get rid of a superfluity, even if that were the intention of the Order, which it certainly is not?

Sir J. Barlow: The intention is to take off the market the surplus of the finer counts. If the producer of the finer counts can obtain a higher price then obviously, other spinners and workers would probably try to drift into the production of finer counts, in order to qualify for export, and there would be increased export of finer counts which we do not want. We want to use all the yarns we can for production in this country as far as possible. Where there is at present a substantial amount of finer counts which cannot be used here obviously they should be exported in the best way possible in order to prevent an undue increase in the production of finer counts. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should consider the formation of a pool so that all the spinners can benefit by this. I believe that that would not embarrass the production of yarn more than is the case at present.

12.28 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am certain that hon. Members on the other side of the House who are praying against these Orders misconceive the situation as it exists and the intentions of the Government. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) has asked that our inquiries be directed not only to the spinners but to the merchants. I think that the House would agree that what we have done, in the letter referred to by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Prayer, was right. We have asked for


returns of exports in the three year period 1937–1938–1939. If we had taken a later period that would have been unfair to those firms who were concentrated during the war years. The Cotton Control consulted spinners because they are not in direct contact with export merchants. In fact the Cotton Control does not know who the export merchants are. All the Cotton Control has tried to do has been to achieve a fair allocation as between spinners, and may I say here that we have had representations from spinners which led to the decision to make these Orders?
I am under the impression that what is wanted is not so much the annulment of these Orders as an explanation of the facts which led to their being made, and I should like to give that explanation in some detail. We desire to put right an anomaly which has existed since 1940. The three Orders relate to single yarn, double yarn and waste yarn, and exactly the same considerations apply to all three. The spinners work to fixed margins. They are bound under Statutory Orders to sell at a prescribed price, except in the case of direct exports, where the prescribed price has been a minimum and not a maximum. In other words, before the making of these Orders, spinners who sold their yarn direct to a foreign customer could charge more than the prescribed price, whereas the spinner who sold to a merchant who then resold to the foreign customer could not. During the war there was not much difficulty about this, but in the present sellers' market this state of affairs has been objected to both by spinners and export merchants. The spinners object very naturally on the ground that the whole of the profits on export sales have gone to the merchants who have done nothing more than procure the orders from the foreign buyers. In present conditions that means nothing at all, because the foreign buyer is only too anxious to place his order.
Strangely enough, the merchants have also objected. They say that the spinners have sought to by-pass them and establish direct contact with the buyers overseas instead of placing their contracts through what, in normal times, would be regarded as the normal channel, namely, the merchants. We sought to put this right by permitting the spinners to sell yarn for exports to merchants at more than the

prescribed price. We think that we are meeting the objections of both the spinners and the merchants by enabling the spinners and the merchants to share in the profits on the exports in proportions they agree to among themselves. The spinners cannot be paid the excess over the prescribed price until it has been established that the yarn has been exported. Moreover, the relaxation only applies to yarn in the form in which it leaves the spinner. It does not extend to yarn which is to undergo further processing in this country before it is exported. It may be the desire of hon. Members opposite— although I do not think it is, having listened to what they have said tonight— to criticise our policy in allowing exports of any yarn at all. I can assure them that I would certainly not be a party to exporting yarn from this country if it could be used in this country to advantage. I quite agree with those who say that the right way to export textiles of any kind is in a finished form, wherever possible. I certainly would not be a party to exporting yarn, if that yarn could be usefully converted here.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: Is it not a fact that we are importing a considerable amount of yarn from overseas at the moment?

Mr. Belcher: It may be the case. It may be that at any one time we have a surplus in this country of a particular type of yarn and a shortage of another kind of yarn which can be imported. If the hon. Member will listen to my remarks, he will see how we have worked this out. We have always had a certain amount of trade in unbleached yarns, mostly to the Dominions, and particularly to Canada. In 1946, the value of exports of unbleached yarn was about 3 million, out of a total for all cotton textile exports of £60 million. There would be difficulties if we were to say to the Dominions, particularly to Canada, which has been of such great assistance to us in so many ways during the last seven or eight years, that they can no longer receive from us the yarn on which they have based a certain amount of their own industry. That would not be an expression of gratitude to that Dominion for all they have done for us during the difficult years from which we are just emerging. I would be prepared to make some sacrifices in order to maintain that goodwill.
In 1946, we exported to our overseas customers, mainly the Dominions, and principally Canada, yarn to the value of 19 million lb., as compared with 123 million lb. in 1938. They are taking today the very minimum of their normal requirements. They have always depended on us to supply them with their yarn requirements. Although our own yarn using industries are most anxious to obtain increased supplies of yarn there is not— and, in the nature of things, there could not be—such perfect adjustment between spinners and yarn users that yarn surpluses would never arise. It may be that at one time you will have a surplus of one kind of yarn and the shortage of another. But you cannot divert a surplus to a particular section of the industry which was using yarn in short supply with any good effect at all. In those circumstances, it would be wrong to forbid the export of surplus yarn.
These Orders do not affect the total quantity of yarn exported. We can control that by export licensing. Relaxation cannot increase the total quantity of yarn exported. It merely enables the spinners —most worthy people, whom we are anxious to encourage—to share in the profits of the quantity which, anyhow, would be exported. I believe it is felt by hon. Members opposite that there should also be relaxation, to a large extent, in respect of bleached yarn, cloth, and, possibly, made up goods. In principle, we are sympathetic, but the difficulty which faces us in all cases of price control is to find any way of relaxing the present system without jeopardising essential home productions. It is fairly easy to follow any unbleached yarn, and to see that it is exported, or, if it is not exported, that the spinner does not get an excess price. But it would be quite impossible to follow yarn which was to be subjected to further processing. We are, at present, confronted with a very serious shortage of textiles of all kinds, and there would be a tremendous incentive on the part of the buyers of yarn, or cloth, to allege that they wanted the material for export, in order that they might get priority in delivery, and, in fact, would use the product on the home market. As every hon. Member knows, the market for these commodities, for cloth and made-up goods, is so pressing that the prices which would be offered would act as a very considerable incentive, but apart from

that, apart from the possibility of abuse, there is a more fundamental objection.
Prior to the recent fuel difficulties, manufacturers had an order book with dates of delivery between five and eight months. Due to these fuel difficulties, their order books are probably longer. Five to eight months have probably become anything up to twelve months. If the export orders were made more attractive by a higher price attaching to them, manufacturers would scramble for them, would deliver them first, and would, of course, be most reluctant to accept orders for other purposes, and as the export orders in total amount to something like one-sixth of the total production, that would mean a very serious hold-up on other production. If I might take an extreme case, production for the utility production might be held up for a month or six weeks while priority was given to export orders, and the resulting shortage of textiles in the shops might very well wreck our whole coupon rationing scheme, which has confronted us with very considerable difficulties as a result of the hold-up in production during the last two or three months. There are other cotton products where continuity of production is essential, and a serious interruption in the flow of supplies to those manufacturers would have very serious effects on this country. I might cite belting for the coal mines, and supplies for hospitals; paper-makers require cotton felts. All of these industries would be affected. At the present moment yarn production is nicely balanced as between the competing demands under a detailed allocation scheme, and it is essential that we should maintain this balance if we are to avoid industrial dislocation.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury asked me whether I would consider a point he put to me. If the cotton industry can suggest a scheme whereby price relaxation can be carried further than these orders carry it without endangering essential home production, I should be only too pleased to consider it, but meanwhile I do not feel justified in releasing exports from price control or in creating an incentive to give priority to them so long as the present general shortage of textiles persists.
I am sorry to have been so long, but I wanted to give a detailed explanation to the House. May I, in conclusion, quote from the "Manchester Guardian" in its


issue of 22nd March, 1947? I do so because the "Manchester Guardian" speaks with very great authority on these matters. It has a specialised staff which has made a study of these things for quite a long time. It said about these Orders:
Hitherto producers who sold and shipped controlled yarns direct to customers abroad could charge higher prices than those prescribed in Control Orders. Producers, however, who sold yarn to customers in this country who then exported it could only charge the controlled prices. This was a serious disadvantage to the spinner who could not himself undertake the sale or shipping of yarn abroad. Under the new system, however, prices above those laid down in the Control Orders may be charged by spinners who sell yarns to customers in this country for export without further processing or winding. As prices at which Lancashire yarns are sold to overseas importers and consumers are now usually considerably higher than those fixed for sales in the United Kingdom, the new arrangement gives the spinner the opportunity of benefiting from the difference in prices which has hitherto benefited the exporter.
I am quite certain it would be the desire of every hon. Member of this House that if advantage is to be gained it should be gained by the man who does the work, and not by the man who does nothing but get the order in circumstances where it is easy to get an order.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: We have listened to a lengthy explanation, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not cleared up all the points about which hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned. In the first place, he has not made clear the position of the merchant under the new dispensation. Why are these inquiries only to be made to spinners? What is to happen to the merchants' trade? It is true that the merchant has no entitlement to this exceptional profit, but surely it is reasonable that his trade should not be taken entirely out of his hands. We should like to know exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary intends to do about the merchants. Then the Parliamentary Secretary refers to exports of yarn, and says that we can control this by allocation or quotas, but what is to be the allocation of yarn for this period or the next period? The trade at present is in something of a quandary, over exports. It does not know where it is going, or what the intentions of the Board of Trade are, and I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary has not made the position very clear.

Mr. Belcher: The hon. Member asked what we are doing about the merchants. I do not know whether he has seen the letter—obviously the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Errol) has—but in this letter the figures asked for were for either the yarn exported direct or yarn sold by them to merchants or agents. In other words we have sought information about the merchants, and we are endeavouring to see that justice is done to all.

Mr. Shepherd: Surely that is not very satisfactory, because it is possible and indeed likely that the spinners will not be able to give the names of the merchants. It was so long ago.

Mr. Rhodes: There is no question about it. Of course they can.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) is more confident about the merchants getting a square deal than I am. I feel the merchant is likely to be robbed of his just dues under this Order. What I am anxious to establish is what is to be the position so far as the export of yam is concerned. I should have thought that in the present difficulties nothing should be done to increase the export of yarn. We are faced with an immense shortage in most yarns, and it is important that nothing should be done which increases the allocation of yarn for the overseas trade. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House whether there is a surplus of yarn in any cotton.

Mr. Hale: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it relevant on an Order which merely shifts the commission from the merchant to the spinner to discuss the whole of our cotton exports, to discuss the whole of our allocation, and to discuss surpluses and their disposal?

Mr. Speaker: Normally one could not go outside the Order, but I gather the hon. Member was referring to what the-Parliamentary Secretary said.

Mr. Shepherd: I was endeavouring to clear up some of the points raised by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope I was not going outside the ambit of his reply. I am concerned to know whether or not there was an exportable surplus of yarn. I have a copy of a letter written by the late Parliamentary Secretary which indicated that owing to the fuel crisis.


there was not a surplus. Therefore it is most important that the trade should know exactly where it stands. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us exactly what is the yarn export position at the present time.

Mr. Erroll: I think we have had a good explanation from the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, and negatived.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes to One o'Clock.